9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 2. Reduction of sentence 3. Validity of prosecution without clearance from the Government of India 4. Ownership of the Bahikhatas and related business 5. Reliance on admissions made by the accused 6. Proof of entries in the Bahikhatas 7. Presumption under Section 67 of the Gold (Control) Act 8. Definition of 'gold' under the Gold (Control) Act 9. Lack of evidence for conviction 10. Discharge of the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 1756 of 1980 Analysis: 1. The judgment involved two connected Criminal Revisions where the first revision challenged the conviction under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and the second revision challenged the reduction of the sentence imposed on the applicant. The Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence from two years to nine months of rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case revolved around a joint raid conducted at a residence where Bahikhatas containing entries of gold transactions were recovered. The applicant accepted that the Bahikhatas related to his business, distancing his father from involvement. However, the prosecution failed to establish ownership of the Bahikhatas and the related business conclusively. 3. The judgment highlighted the necessity of obtaining clearance from the Government of India before launching a prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act. The circular letter imposed restrictions on prosecutions, requiring clearance in certain cases. The lack of clearance in the present case raised doubts about the validity of the prosecution. 4. The prosecution heavily relied on admissions made by the applicant regarding the Bahikhatas. However, the defense argued that these admissions were made under duress to protect the applicant's father, who suffered from a heart ailment. 5. The proof of entries in the Bahikhatas was crucial for the prosecution. The court noted that secondary evidence could not be given without establishing the correctness of the original entries. Witnesses failed to adequately prove the entries, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. 6. The judgment also discussed the presumption under Section 67 of the Gold (Control) Act regarding entries in the Bahikhatas. However, since the Bahikhatas were seized from a different individual than the accused, no presumption could be made, necessitating proper proof of the entries. 7. The definition of 'gold' under the Gold (Control) Act was analyzed concerning the applicant's dealings in gold ornaments. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that the ornaments dealt with by the applicant met the purity requirements to be classified as gold under the Act. 8. Ultimately, due to various shortcomings in the prosecution's case, including lack of conclusive evidence, failure to establish ownership of the Bahikhatas, and procedural irregularities regarding clearance for prosecution, the court allowed Criminal Revision No. 1756 of 1980. The applicant's conviction and sentence were set aside, and the applicant was discharged without the need to surrender. Criminal Revision No. 213 of 1981 was dismissed.
|
