9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Contradictory findings between criminal revision and penalty imposition. 2. Imposition of penalty under the Gold (Control) Act without physical gold seizure. Analysis: 1. The case involved a reference under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, regarding contradictory findings between a criminal revision and the imposition of a penalty under the Act. The applicant and his father were raided, leading to the recovery of gold transaction records. The applicant was initially convicted but later acquitted by the High Court due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal imposed a penalty based on the recovered records, leading to the reference questions. The court held that the criminal proceedings and penalty imposition were distinct, with the latter falling under the Act's civil nature, allowing different findings. 2. The second issue pertained to the imposition of a penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act without any physical gold seizure. The applicant argued that since no gold was recovered, no penalty should be levied. However, Section 74 allows for penalties even without physical gold recovery, based on acts or omissions rendering gold liable to confiscation. The court clarified that the absence of physical gold did not preclude penalty imposition, as the applicant's gold dealings were established through other evidence, making the penalty valid under the Act. In conclusion, the court upheld the imposition of the penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, emphasizing the distinct nature of criminal proceedings and penalty imposition. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions allowing penalties without physical gold recovery and affirmed the Tribunal's decision in imposing the penalty based on the evidence of gold dealings.
|
