9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises of the appellants, 6.600 gms. of primary gold was recovered on the one hand and 170.000 gms. and 469.000 gms. were recovered from the partners of the firm. This primary gold was in the form of lagadi and rawa and was concealed on the person of the partners. In the case adjudicated by the department, the gold was confiscated although appellants were given option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The firm and the partners were also penalised under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 to the extent of Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 3000/-and Rs. 2000/-respectively. 2. In appeal, the order of confiscation and penalty imposed on the partners was confirmed. The penalty imposed on the firm was, however, set aside. 3. The pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical one and did not justify heavy impositions. (c) There were claimants in respect of the gold and there was no doubt about their identity. (d) It is true that the department had launched a prosecution against the firm and its two partners and that the Metropolitan Magistrate had imposed a fine of Rs. 350/- on each of them. At the same time, however, the Metropolitan Magistrate had expressed the view that the offence committed could not be viewed seriously in view of the fact that appellants had substantially accounted for the gold ornaments in their shop. (e) Above all, our attention is drawn to the fact that the conviction and sentence passed on the appellants by the lower Court for offences for which appellants were charged and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old Control) and that these penalties had been confirmed in appeal. It was also observed that prosecution proceedings had been launched in the Court of Law against the partners, who had been convicted to fines of Rs. 350/- each or in default, each of the partners were required to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both accused were also sentenced to suffer one-day s S.I. under Section 87 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. But all these facts, as appellants have rightly submitted before us, have undergone a change as a result of orders passed by the Government of India in revision and the acquittal of the appellants by the Court of Sessions. 9. Cancellation of licence under Section 50(1A) is a high penalty which can be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
