1979 (11) TMI 105 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Acquittal under Section 27(1) read with Section 85(viii) and (ix) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Prosecution's Case:
The case involved the acquittal of the accused, who was prosecuted for an offense under Section 27(1) read with Section 85(viii) and (ix) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The prosecution alleged that the accused, an employee at a jewelry store, was found in possession of gold ornaments without the required license. The prosecution presented evidence of the recovery of various gold ornaments from the accused's house, along with a statement from the accused admitting to keeping the ornaments for sale.

2. Initial Adjudication and Revision:
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise initially imposed a penalty and ordered the confiscation of the jewels. However, a revision was allowed by the Government of India, which observed discrepancies in the case, including the statement obtained from the accused under compulsion. The revision concluded that the accused deserved the benefit of the doubt due to unexplained infirmities in the case, leading to the setting aside of the penalty and confiscation order.

3. Evidence and Trial Proceedings:
During the trial, the proprietor of the jewelry store testified that he used to provide jewels as incentives to employees, including the accused. However, he could not definitively confirm whether the specific ornaments found in the accused's possession were provided by him. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused was actively engaged in trading gold ornaments, as no trading equipment was found during the search, and witnesses did not observe the accused trading in gold.

4. Judicial Finding and Acquittal:
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the prosecution's claim that the accused was trading in gold ornaments illegally. It was noted that the gold ornaments possessed by the accused were within the permissible limit under the Gold (Control) Act. The Magistrate emphasized that apart from a retracted confessional statement, there was insufficient evidence to prove the accused's guilt under the relevant sections of the Act.

5. Final Decision and Dismissal of Appeal:
Considering the subsequent exoneration of the accused by higher authorities and the absence of compelling evidence against him, the High Court upheld the acquittal by the Magistrate. The Court highlighted that the Department could not challenge the acquittal based on subsequent developments, thereby dismissing the appeal against the accused.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the lack of concrete evidence establishing the accused's violation of the Gold (Control) Act, leading to his acquittal despite initial penalties imposed. The decision underscored the importance of substantiated evidence in prosecuting offenses under the relevant legal provisions.