9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (1) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... family consisting of himself, his wife and daughter. All of them are residing at No. 44, Sourtank Road, Chetput, Madras. Even from before the date on which the Gold Control Act of 1968 (to be referred to hereafter as the Act) came into force, the family was possessed of gold ornaments weighing 9400 grams. After the Act came into force, the family was entitled to possession of 4036-500 grams of gold and any gold held in excess thereof had to be declared within a month after the Act came into force. The excess gold in the possession of the family of the accused was 5363-500 grams. No declaration was made by the accused in respect of this excess gold either within a month after the Act came into force or at any time later till Ex. P1 and P2 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and his wife prior to the date of Ex. P.1 and P.2, the excess gold ornaments weighing 5363-500 grams were seized under cover of the mahazar Ex. P7, and departmental proceedings were initiated against the accused. Subsequently, an order of adjudication evidenced by Ex. P.12, was passed by the Collector of Central Excise confiscating the gold ornaments weighing 5363-500 grams under the Gold Control Act. In addition, this prosecution has been launched against the accused on the ground that he failed, without any reasonable cause, to make a declaration of the excess gold in his possession. The contention of the accused was that he did not know that he was in possession of more than 4000 grams of gold ornaments as he was visiting and staying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been frequently out of India. Ignorance of law is undoubtedly no excuse. Ignoratia juris non excusat, as the saying goes. Therefore, the respondent cannot plead ignorance of law as a sufficient excuse for his failure to file the declaration. If this contention of the accused is to be upheld, no accused can be convicted for a similar offence, because illiteracy or ignorance due to other causes can always be pleaded. Mens rea is not a necessary ingredient for the commission of offence under Sec. 85(viii) and Sec. 16(g) read with Sec. 86 of the Act. The accused cannot also plead ignorance about the quantity of gold in the possession of his family, because he has declared the correct weight in his statement to the Wealth-tax and Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
