1988 (1) TMI 174 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the acquittal of the accused in C.C. 45 of 1985 for violation of Sections 27(7)(b) and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Examination of evidence regarding excess gold found in the shop and on the 3rd floor of the building.
3. Defense plea of excess gold being purchased by the accused's brother and intended to be included in the stock.
4. Interpretation of Section 27(7)(b) of the Gold (Control) Act regarding conducting business in unlicensed premises.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the challenge to the acquittal of the accused under Sections 27(7)(b) and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The accused, a gold dealer, was charged with violations related to excess gold found in his shop and on the 3rd floor of the building. The prosecution presented evidence of discrepancies in the stock of gold ornaments and the physical verification conducted by the authorities.

2. The prosecution's case relied on the fact that the accused had excess gold in his possession beyond what was accounted for. The defense contended that the excess gold was purchased by the accused's brother and was intended to be included in the stock. The court examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and the seizure of a significant amount of money from an individual associated with the accused's brother.

3. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 27(7)(b) of the Gold (Control) Act, which prohibits licensed dealers from conducting business in premises other than those specified in their license. The defense argued that the accused did not conduct business in the 3rd-floor room where the excess gold was found, but merely stored ornaments selected by a customer. However, the court held that stocking gold in unlicensed premises constitutes conducting business as a dealer, as per the Act's provisions.

4. Based on the interpretation of the law and the evidence presented, the court set aside the acquittal of the accused under Section 27(7)(b) and sentenced the accused to three months of simple imprisonment and a fine for the violation. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to licensing regulations and conducting business within the approved premises as specified by the Gold (Control) Act.

Conclusion:
The judgment by the High Court of Kerala addressed the violations of the Gold (Control) Act by a gold dealer, emphasizing the need for compliance with licensing regulations and accurate accounting of gold stock. The detailed analysis of evidence and legal provisions led to the conviction of the accused for conducting business in unlicensed premises, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment and a fine.