Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (3) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he 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. - 4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to-day business is conducted is in the ground floor. On 23-9-1981 Superintendent of Central Excise, examined as P.W.I, raided the shop of the appellant and conducted a search. Books of accounts maintained by the appellant were verified and it was found that there was a stock of 1372 pieces of gold ornaments. The search party found 169 pieces of new gold ornaments in the third floor of the building weighing 667.850 grams kept in a card-board box. They were seized. On further investigation conducted by the officer it was also revealed that the appellant s brother, his business associate, had purchased some items of jewellery from another dealer and had also kept the same in the said licensed premises. A complaint was preferred against the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Section 27(7) (b) is proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant to three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer a further period of two months. Questioning the same, the present appeal by way of special leave has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court has misconstrued the provisions of Section 27(7) (b) and at any rate in the instant case the High Court erred in interfering in an appeal against acquittal. It is also submitted that even if the prosecution case is to be accepted in this context what at the most can be said is that two views are possible and in such an event the interference in an order of acquittal is uncalled for. 6. It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) The Administrator shall specify, in each licence granted to a dealer, the premises in which such dealer shall carry on business and no other person shall carry on business as a dealer in the said premises. (b) A licensed dealer shall not carry on business as such dealer in any premises other than the premises specified in his licence." The above principal question has to be examined in the light of this provision and see whether the appellant was carrying on business in any premises other than the premises specified in the licence. As already mentioned, the entire building is given one municipal number and there is no other evidence in support of the prosecution case that the third floor of the building does not form part of the licen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates