9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Section 85(i)(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act based on possession of primary gold. Interpretation of evidence regarding ownership and control of seized items. Application of Sections 98B and 99 of the Act in establishing guilt. Analysis: The judgment involves a case where the accused was convicted under Section 85(i)(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act based on the possession of primary gold. The prosecution's case revolved around the accused being the head of the family and thus assumed to be in possession, custody, or control of the seized gold items. However, the defense argued that there was no legal evidence to establish the accused's status as the head of the family or his ownership of the primary gold. The defense contended that the conviction was based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the evidence on record clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. They relied on Sections 98B(ii) and 99 of the Act to support their claim that the accused, being the head of the family, was in possession, control, or custody of the primary gold. The prosecution highlighted the examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where he claimed the gold belonged to his deceased sister. They also pointed out that the accused owned the flat where the gold was found, further implicating him in the case. The court analyzed the evidence presented and referred to the case law to determine the burden of proof on the prosecution. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession, control, or custody of the primary gold in question. The court noted discrepancies in the evidence regarding ownership and control of the seized items, emphasizing that mere assumptions about the accused's status as the head of the family were insufficient to prove guilt. Moreover, the court examined the provisions of Sections 98B and 99 of the Act, which deal with presumptions related to the mental state of the accused and ownership of seized items. The court concluded that the prosecution did not meet the standard of proof required to invoke these provisions, thereby rejecting the prosecution's arguments based on these sections. In the final verdict, the court made the Rule absolute, setting aside the conviction and sentences imposed on the accused. The accused was acquitted, and any fines paid were ordered to be refunded. The petitioner was discharged from his bail bond, bringing the case to a close.
|
