9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame and obtain standard gold bars in exchange as per usual procedure. En route he was allegedly attacked by seven persons who robbed him of the bag. A complaint was lodged with the police and as a result of investigation 6158 gms. of gold were recovered between 15/20th June 1986 from the receiver of stolen property and other accused persons who are being arraigned before the Sessions Judge, Bombay in sessions case No. 247 of 1986. 2. As could be anticipated the Gold Control authorities were quick to pick up the scent of the seizure of such a large quantity of gold and were concerned about any infraction of the Gold Control Act. A series of proceedings followed consequent upon a minuet of applications to the sessions court and it would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence of the Sessions Registrar and Judge Bhojwani on 2nd June 1986 fixed 12.00 noon on 5th June 1986 as the time when the property should be handed over by the Sessions Registrar in the Court in the presence of Gold Control Authorities. Certain clarifications were sought from the High Court and Puranik, J. by his order dated 14th July 1986 noted that the respondent Ratanlal has categorically stated that he has no objection if the petitioners (i.e. Gold Control Authorities officers) are present at the time of return of the property . In view of this submission Puranik, J. discharged the rule as no further clarification was necessary. On 17th June 1986 Ratanlal received the property in the office of the Registrar of Sessions Court. As Rata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... themselves into action and were making attempts to seize the property. As the gold was handed over to the petitioner on 17th July 1986 in the presence of the Gold Control Officers, they followed the petitioner when he left the court premises and seized the property. The gold is contained in a brief case having numbered combination lock and it appears that the combination code is not known to the Gold Control Officers. On 28th November 1986 the Gold Control Officers have made a panchanama by which they have seized the property in exercise of powers conferred on them by Section 66 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. Even now the combination lock has not been opened nor have the officers tried to forcibly break open the brief case. 5. It appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act, the Antiquities Art Treasures Act, 1972 etc. The cases will have to be tried in different courts. Even though the entire property may be seized and produced before a single court, it would be necessary for the proper prosecution of cases under the various Acts that the police are enabled to seize the property in a formal manner and produce the same as and when necessary before the various courts albeit with the permission of the first court where the property was produced. Likewise here. Even though the property becomes the subject matter of a robbery and hence is custodia legis with reference to the sessions Court, the Gold Control Officers cannot be denied their performance of duty under the Gold Control Act. However with a vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
