GYANCHAND SHANTILAL JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (PREVENTIVE DEPARTMENT, MADRAS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the judgment rendered in C.A. No. 266 of 1976 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras Division, dated 19th November, 1975.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that P.W. 1 who is the Inspector of Central Excise, Madras, checked the accounts and inspected the gold items in the shop of the petitioner herein on 26th June, 1973 at about 5:30 p.m. that the petitioner was found in possession of primary gold weighing 2.200 grams. (M.O. 1 series), 3 gold sovereign coins weighing 20 grams, (M.O.2 series) and brand new gold ornaments such as 52 gold nose screws, 10 studs, thali and thali gundus made of gold 8 in number (M.O. 3 series) all weighing 308.700 grams and that all the above said items are in excess of the account shown by him. They were seized under the mahazar (Ex. P -1) duly attested by independent witnesses. The Central Excise authorities took action under the Gold Control Act and passed an order (Ex. P -5) confiscating the gold items and ornaments stated above and imposed a penalty of Rs. 250/ -. After taking action under the Gold Control Act, the authorities also laid a complaint for violation of certain sections of the Gold Control Act by the petitioner herein after granting an authorisation as per Ex. P -6. The alleged offences committed by the petitioner are under Ss. 6(2) 8(1) and 27(1) of the Gold Control Act, 1968, punishable under S. 85(ii) (viii) and (ix) of the Gold Control Act.

(3.) THE trial Court held that D.W.1 had no explanation for non -production of the pawn tickets in respect of the jewels said to have been pledged by him. It accepted the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution and held that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Ss. 8(1), 27(1) and 6(2) of the Act punishable under Ss. 85(ii), (viii) and (ix) of the Gold Control Act. Accordingly, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner under the aforesaid sections observing that he did not impose separate sentence under each head. Finally, the trial Court sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras Division, who heard the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, confirmed the conviction and the sentence of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the above criminal revision petition.