1979 (1) TMI 100 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal under Sec. 85 and 86 of the Gold Control Act.
2. Possession of excess gold ornaments without declaration.
3. Reasonable cause for non-declaration.
4. Ignorance of law as a defense.
5. Mens rea in the commission of the offense.
6. Sentencing and fines imposed.
7. Return of confiscated gold ornaments.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves an appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise against the acquittal of the accused under Sec. 85 and 86 of the Gold Control Act by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The accused, head of a joint Hindu family, possessed excess gold ornaments without making the required declaration.

2. The family of the accused held 9400 grams of gold ornaments before the Act came into force, with an excess of 5363-500 grams post-Act. Despite no attempt to conceal this excess in tax returns, the accused failed to declare it promptly. Declarations were made later, claiming possession since 1950, leading to a search and seizure by the Excise department.

3. The Magistrate found the accused had a reasonable cause for the delayed declaration, considering his foreign travels during the Act's enforcement. However, the High Court emphasized that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, and the accused's declaration to tax authorities indicated awareness of the gold possession.

4. The judgment discusses mens rea, stating it's not a necessary element for offenses under the Gold Control Act. While acknowledging the lack of intent to conceal, the Court found the accused guilty of offenses under Sec. 86 and Sec. 85(viii), imposing fines and imprisonment in default.

5. The High Court allowed the appeal, convicting the accused under Sec. 86 read with Sec. 16(g) and Sec. 85(viii) of the Act. The sentencing included fines and imprisonment for each offense, with a specified time for fine payment.

6. Regarding the confiscated gold ornaments, the Magistrate's order for return was set aside, allowing the accused to pursue departmental remedies for their return. The judgment highlights the legal principles surrounding possession, declaration, and consequences under the Gold Control Act.

Conclusion:
The judgment addresses the issues of possession, declaration, reasonable cause, ignorance of the law, mens rea, sentencing, and return of confiscated items under the Gold Control Act. It underscores the legal obligations and consequences for non-compliance, emphasizing the importance of timely declarations and the lack of ignorance as a defense in such cases.