9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 74 of the Act. 2. On 16-12-87 the officers of the Preventive Intelligence Unit, Nellore Division, intercepted the appellant at Nellore when he alighted there from a bus bound for Tirupathi-Vijayawada and found him in possession of 990.250 gms. of new gold ornaments. Since the ornaments were in trade quantities, the authorities had reason to believe that they were kept for purposes of sale in contravention of law since the appellant admittedly was not a licensee under the Act. The authorities, therefore, effected seizure of the same under a mahazar as per law. Appellant gave a statement before the authorities that the ornaments belonged to his family and were being taken to Vijayawada for purpose of sale and that he sold one n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that he was dealing as a dealer without a licence. The learned Counsel finally pleaded that in any event the quantum of fine and penalty is harsh and excessive warranting reduction inasmuch as admittedly the appellant had never been invloved in any offence of this kind at any time in the past and that the purity of the ornaments is also found to be only 22 ct. 4. Heard Shri Bhatia, the learned Sr.D.R. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. The short question that arises for our consideration in the present case is whether the evidence on record establishes the charge of contravention under Section 27(1) of the Act against the appellant. Section 27(1) of the Act states that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce either direct or circumstantial points to a conclusion that a person has commenced business as a dealer without a licence. The definition of the word dealer extracted above is very wide in its scope and comprehensive in its connotation and takes within its ambit any person who carries on either directly or otherwise the business of buying or selling or supplying or distributing or converting gold for cash or deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration. In the present case, having regard to the huge quantities of ornaments, the inference is irresistable that they were meant only for purposes of sale by the appellant as a dealer in contravention of law. The plea that the ornaments in question belonged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra is not in pari materia with and different from Section 27(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 if a person has commenced business as a dealer without a licence the offence is complete. The appellant in the present case being in possession of new gold ornaments in trade quantities and having ventured out to Vijayawada admittedly for the purpose of selling them would be squarely covered by Section 27(1) of the Act unless the appellant is able to establish that the ornaments belonged to his family. As we have already held earlier, the trade nature of the ornaments would falsify the claim of the appellant that the ornaments belonged to his family. We, therefore, on consideration of the evidence on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
