STATE OF MYSORE Vs. RAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of acquittal by the State Government in a case in which the respondent who was the accused was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Sections 6 and 13 of the Mysore Mines Act (Mysore Act IV of 1906). The accusation against him was that he was in unlawful possession of a substance described us mining sponge gold weighing a little less than five and half Tolas of the value of Rs. 673 -31 when he was searched in a place near the Gandhi Statue in front of the Khadi Bhandar shop, Robertsonpet at 6 -30 P.M. on September 10, 1363. The magistrate accepted the story of the prosecution that the substance which was examined by P. W. 1 an assayer attached to the Mysore Mines, was sponge gold. Sponge gold as defined by Section 2(6) (b) of the Mysore Mines Act which will be referred to as the Act, is a mining material. Section 6 makes it an offence for a person to be in possession of any mining material without the written permission of the mining proprietor or the superintendent and when a person is unable to prove that his possession of such mining material was lawful. Section 13 prescribes the penalty which may be imposed on a person committing an offence under Section 6.

(2.) P . W. 7 a circle inspector attached to the detective branch of Oorgaum, gave evidence that at about 6 -30 P. M. on September 10, 1963, he acquired information that the accused was on his way to his residence in Robertsonpet with mining gold. His evidence was that the accused was waylaid near the Mahatma Gandhi Statue in Robertsonpet when he arrived there ten or fifteen minutes later and that a little less than five and a half Tolas of sponge gold was produced by him from one of the pockets of his shirt. P. Ws. 2, 5 and 6 were the wit -nesses who were according to the witness, present when the gold was seized. Exhibit P -2 was the Mahazar prepared at 6 -20 P. M. on that day in which a record was made of the seizure of the gold.

(3.) THE accused repudiated the prosecution story that he produced the sponge gold as alleged. His version was that on that evening he had visited his physician D. W. 1 to get his child treated and that as advised by his physician he was on his way to purchase some oranges for his child when he was stopped by the police. He stated that he did not on that occasion produce any gold and that a false case was foisted against him.