CHOKSI PURSHOTTAM VISHRAMBHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition raises the question as to whether certain gold bangles are ornaments within the meaning of the Gold Control Act, 1968.

(2.) The petitioners are a partnership firm and they deal in the sale and manufacture of jewellery and ornaments. In the course of their business they purchase gold ornaments and send the same to the Official Mint for melting down into bears of standard purity. On 14th day 1969 the petitioners sent 222 gold bangles weighing 4813.800 grams to the Mint for this purpose. The officers of the Central Excise (Gold Division) posted at the Mint passed the bangles as ornaments as defined in the Act and issued a receipt to that effect. Before the bangles could be melted, however, officers of the Gold Circle, Bombay (Preventive and Intelligence) seized them. A statement was taken from a partner of the petitioners, Arvind Kumar Mohanlal Choksi. A panchnama was made, at which the panchas were Popatlat Purshottamdas Soni and Himatlal Deepchand Gandhi. It was noted in the panchnama that it was found on a careful examination that the articles seized were gold bangles numbering 222 of different sizes, weights and designs and the approximate purity of 22 to 23 carrots. On 8th September 1969 the petitioners were served with a notice to show cause why the bangles should not be confiscated under Section 71 of the Act. The annexure to the notice, which set out the facts, stated that after the seizure an officer of the Gold Circle visited the premises of the petitioners and examined their registers. These revealed that no entry in respect of the bangles had made. The partner of the petitioner who had been examined had stated that the entries in the registers had been posted only upto 12th May 1969 and that the entries in respect of the bangles were to be made on the morning of 14th May 1969. A panchnama was made of the bangles and registers at which the panchas were the same as for the earlier panchnama. They noted that 222 gold bangles had been sorted out according to design and this showed that there were 5 designs consisting of 62, 51, 47, 35 and 27 bangles. On 13th November 1969 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners in supersession of the earlier show cause notice dated 8th September 1969. This alleged that the petitioners had contravened the provisions of the Act inasmuch as they had acquired the bangles in a manner otherwise than provided by Section 31 of the Act and had failed to furnish particulars in the required registers. The annexure to the notice stated that the bangles did not appear to be in a finished form and it was unlikely, if the bangles has been purchased from different customers, that they could have the same design, shape and weight. It was also stated that the petitioners partner could not correlate them with the purchases shown in their accounts. On 24th November 1969 the petitioners replied to the show cause notice and submitted that they had not contravened the provisions of the Act.

(3.) At the instance of the petitioners the two panchas were subjected to an examination. Popatlal stated that he was a licensed goldsmith, who had been in the business for 14 years and had large experience with ornaments. He stated that the bangles were ornaments and would be considered to be in a finished form. Such bangles were worn by ladies. In the course of his business he had received similar bangles for purchases to be made by his firm. The designs on the bangles received in the market were of the type on the seized bangles. They showed some signs of use and that is why they did not seem to be very much polished. He could not say whether the bangles had been machine polished because they were used. There were some edges to the bangles. He could not say in what form the bangles had been used. If the bangles had been used for a short duration the edges might not be rubbed off but the polish would go because of weather conditions.