1990 (3) TMI 152 - SC - Central Excise

Whether there were grounds for the High Court to interfere with the findings of the trial court acquitting the accused? Held that - he counsel for the State, however, pointed out that the High Court has observed at one place in the judgment that the counsel for the accused has not raised any contention that the room in the third floor also formed part of the licensed premises. Except making this bare observation, the High Court has not considered the plea taken by the accused and the finding of the trial court in this regard. In the same paragraph, the learned Judge has, however, mentioned that the accused raised a contention in the trial court that the room in the third floor also formed part of the licensed premises and this plea found favour with the trial court. That apart the case of the accused has throughout been that room in the third floor formed part of the licensed premises. Therefore this observation of the appellate court that the counsel did not contend that the third floor formed part of the licensed premises does not appear to be correct. At any rate, there is no such admission by the accused and nor can it be said that there was such a concession by the counsel for the accused. For all the aforesaid reasons, the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court are set aside. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Gold (Control) Act regarding licensed premises for carrying on the business of gold.
2. Allegation of carrying on business in an unlicensed premises.
3. Appeal against acquittal and interference by the High Court.
4. Consideration of evidence and legal provisions in determining the licensed premises for business.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court analyzed the case involving the interpretation of Section 27 of the Gold (Control) Act, which regulates the business of gold dealers. The Act mandates that a person must hold a valid license to conduct gold-related business activities. The appellant, a licensed dealer, was accused of carrying on business in an unlicensed premises, specifically the third floor of the building. The trial court acquitted the appellant, finding insufficient evidence of unaccounted jewelry or unauthorized business operations. However, the High Court overturned the acquittal, concluding that the third floor was not part of the licensed premises, leading to the appellant's conviction and sentencing.

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinized the premises specified in the appellant's license and the building layout. The license mentioned the address of the premises as a single building with a municipal number. The prosecution failed to provide evidence that the third floor was not part of the licensed premises. The Court deliberated on whether storing accounted-for gold ornaments on a different floor implied unauthorized business operations. Citing legal provisions, the Court emphasized the importance of trial court findings and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

The Court referenced a previous judgment to highlight the appellate court's limited scope in disturbing trial court findings if reasonable. It emphasized that if two reasonable views exist based on the evidence, the appellate court should refrain from interference. The appellant consistently maintained that the third floor was part of the licensed premises, contrary to a mere observation in the High Court's judgment. The Court noted discrepancies in the High Court's observations and the appellant's plea, ultimately setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of trial court findings, the presumption of innocence, and the necessity for substantial evidence to prove allegations under the Gold (Control) Act. The Court highlighted the need for a thorough examination of evidence and legal provisions to determine authorized business premises accurately.

← Previous Next →