9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 27(1) lays down that - "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall commence or carry on business as a dealer unless he holds a valid licence issued in this behalf by the Administrator. Sec. 85(viii) says that whoever in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule .or order made thereunder owns or has in his possession, custody or control any articles or ornament shall without prejudice to any other action that may be taken under the Act be punishable with imprisonment. Sec. 85(ix) provides for punishment of such person who carries on any business or transaction in gold for which a licence or certificate is required to be obtained by or under the Act. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3 had been obtained from by coercion and threat. 3. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, who adjudicated the case, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 and ordered confiscation of all the jewels. Subsequently there was a revision which has been allowed by the Government of India on 21-8-1979, observing that the Government of India carefully considered the submission made by the accused in his revision application at the time of the personal hearing and examined the records, that the statement alleged to have been made by the accused before PW 2 has to be ignored, that Mr. R. Ananthapadmanabhan, the only witness to the statement Ex. P 3, was examined at the time of adjudication, that he has clearly deposed that statement has taken under co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hief Metropolitan Magistrate found that apart from the retracted confessional statement of the accused, there is practically no evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the accused was actually trading in gold ornaments. It was admitted before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that the gold ornaments possessed by the accused were within the limit of free allowance granted under the Gold (Control) Act. In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate found that the accused could not be stated to have controverted the provisions of Sec. 27(1) read with Sec. 85(viii) and (ix) of the said Act and acquitted him. 5. The fact that the highest authorities under the Gold (Control) Act have found the accused not guilty and set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
