1972 (2) TMI 104 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search and seizure.
2. Possession and ownership of the seized gold.
3. Applicability of Section 16(2)(g) of the Gold Control Act.
4. Admissibility and voluntariness of the accused's statements.
5. Legal responsibility of the 'Karta' of the family for contraband found in a joint family house.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Search and Seizure:
The prosecution case began with the issuance of a search warrant by P.W. 2 Frederik, Superintendent Central Excise, on 20-12-1968, to search the business and residential premises of the accused. P.W. 1, Sirdeshpande, another Superintendent of Central Excise, executed the search in the presence of panchas. During the search, gold was found in an unlocked cupboard on the first floor of the residential premises. The search and subsequent seizure were documented under panchanama Ex. P-11.

2. Possession and Ownership of the Seized Gold:
The accused contended that he was unaware of the gold found in the house, asserting that the premises were owned and controlled by his father. The learned Magistrate concluded that the gold was not in the exclusive possession and control of the accused, as the house was inhabited by multiple family members, including the father, grandfather, and other occupants. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused had exclusive possession or knowledge of the gold.

3. Applicability of Section 16(2)(g) of the Gold Control Act:
The prosecution argued that as the 'Karta' of the family, the accused was liable under Section 16(2)(g) of the Gold Control Act. However, the court held that this section would only apply if the person had ownership, possession, or control of the gold, which was not established in this case. The court emphasized that the 'Karta' cannot be held criminally liable for contraband found in a joint family house unless there is evidence of his knowledge or control over the contraband.

4. Admissibility and Voluntariness of the Accused's Statements:
The accused's statements (Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4) were scrutinized for voluntariness and content. The court noted that in Ex. P-3, the accused repeatedly denied knowledge of the gold. In Ex. P-4, the accused stated that he felt liable because the gold was found in his dwelling house but claimed the statement was made under threat of arrest and prosecution of his family members. The court ruled that these statements did not constitute an admission of ownership or knowledge of the gold.

5. Legal Responsibility of the 'Karta' of the Family:
The court relied on precedents, including the High Court of Allahabad's decision in Baladin v. State and the Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Emperor v. Santa Singh, which held that possession and control must mean conscious possession and actual control. The court concluded that the mere fact that the accused was the 'Karta' did not imply knowledge or control over the contraband found in the house. The court emphasized that criminal liability requires mens rea or guilty knowledge, which was not proven in this case.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed the acquittal of the accused, stating that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had knowledge or conscious possession of the contraband gold. The appeal by the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise was dismissed, upholding the decision of the learned Magistrate. The court reiterated that in cases of joint family residence, the 'Karta' cannot be presumed to have knowledge of all contents within the house, and criminal liability requires proof of mens rea.