1986 (1) TMI 106 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the possession of gold bars by the revision petitioner.
2. Validity of the conviction under Section 85(1) read with Section 8(1)(i) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
3. Appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Possession of Gold Bars:

The prosecution's case was that on 13-9-1979, the revision petitioner was found in possession of six bars of primary gold weighing 2,747 grams without a license, thereby contravening Section 8(1)(i) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The gold was recovered from the petitioner at Madras Central Railway Station by P.W. 1 Vaikundam and P.W. 2 Vittal Kidhiri. The gold bars were kept in a specially made cloth pouch inside a zip bag along with clothes in a suitcase. The petitioner failed to provide any bills of purchase or documents and admitted to bringing the gold for clandestine disposal in Madras.

2. Validity of the Conviction:

The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 85(1) read with Section 8(1)(i) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and sentenced him to six months of imprisonment. The conviction was based on the testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 6, and the confessional statement of the petitioner (Ex. P. 7), which was recorded in Hindi and translated into Tamil. The petitioner admitted to being a broker in gold jewelry and transporting gold bars from Raipur to Madras at the request of one Ashok Kumar. The lower appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no discrepancies in the evidence presented by the prosecution.

3. Appropriateness of the Sentence:

The petitioner's counsel argued that the sentence was excessive and severe. However, the court emphasized the seriousness of the offense, noting that smuggling of gold is a crime against the nation and has a detrimental impact on the economy. The court referenced the Supreme Court's observations in Balakrishna Chhaganlal Soni v. State of West Bengal, highlighting the need for stringent punishment for economic offenses to deter future criminal activities. The court concluded that the six-month sentence was neither excessive nor severe, given the gravity of the offense.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision case, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower appellate court. The court found no infirmity in the judgment and emphasized the importance of imposing adequate punishments for economic offenses to protect the nation's economy.