9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of clandestine gold transactions and breach of the Gold Control Act. 2. Petitioners' apprehension of arrest and request for bail. 3. Department's argument on the necessity of custody for investigation. 4. Compliance with Gold Control Act provisions and rules. 5. Petitioners' cooperation and conditions for bail. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allegations of clandestine gold transactions and breach of the Gold Control Act: The petitioners, bullion merchants with requisite licenses, were accused by the Customs Department of engaging in clandestine activities by purchasing gold from dubious sources and creating a camouflage through bogus vouchers. The Department alleged that these merchants violated rules by not making payments through cross cheques, thus siphoning money back to themselves. The preliminary examination by the Department was based on suspicions and intelligence received, with no tangible material available at the initial stage to justify these allegations. 2. Petitioners' apprehension of arrest and request for bail: The petitioners feared arrest due to the experiences of other similarly situated gold merchants who were detained but later granted bail. They contended that only preliminary inquiries were in progress, and there was no tangible material to justify their arrest. They argued that detaining them would be unfair and that they were willing to cooperate with the investigation to demonstrate the genuineness of their transactions. 3. Department's argument on the necessity of custody for investigation: The Department insisted on the necessity of verifying all angles before reaching a conclusion, arguing that the petitioners might tamper with evidence if not detained. However, the court observed that the inquiry was still at a preliminary stage, and no tangible material was available to prima facie indicate the petitioners' involvement. The court noted that the investigation could progress effectively without the custody of the petitioners, especially since they were willing to cooperate. 4. Compliance with Gold Control Act provisions and rules: The petitioners were accused of not complying with provisions under the Gold Control Act, particularly regarding payment by cross cheque and identification of customers. The Department argued that this non-compliance was deliberate. However, the court noted that the genuineness of the transactions was yet to be explored and that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to demonstrate the authenticity of their transactions, as mandated by Section 100 of the Gold Control Act and the rules thereunder. 5. Petitioners' cooperation and conditions for bail: The court acknowledged the petitioners' willingness to cooperate with the investigation and their offer to produce the persons named in the vouchers. The court observed that the investigation could continue effectively without the petitioners' custody and granted them bail in anticipation of arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail was granted with conditions to ensure the petitioners' cooperation and to protect the Department's interests. Conditions for Bail: 1. Petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. 2. Petitioners shall attend the office of the Collectorate of Customs (Preventive), Gold Control, Bombay, every Friday during office hours for investigation purposes. 3. Petitioners shall be available to the Investigating Officer at other reasonable times during office hours if required. 4. Petitioners shall not leave the city limits without permission from the Investigating Officers, with an exception for emergencies. 5. Petitioners shall not tamper with prosecution evidence. Conclusion: The court granted bail to the petitioners, emphasizing the preliminary nature of the inquiry and the lack of tangible material to justify their arrest at this stage. The petitioners' cooperation and the conditions imposed were deemed sufficient to protect the interests of justice and the Department.
|
