RATANLAL BHAGWANDAS AGRAWAL Vs. S D MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Sunilkumar Agrawal holds a licence for dealing in gold under Section 26 of the Gold Control Act and the rules made thereunder. On 12th June 1985 his father Ratanlal who helps his son in business was carrying a brief case containing 6621 gms. of gold to the mint where he intended to deposit the same and obtain standard gold bars in exchange as per usual procedure. En route he was allegedly attacked by seven persons who robbed him of the bag. A complaint was lodged with the police and as a result of investigation 6158 gms. of gold were recovered between 15/20th June 1986 from the receiver of stolen property and other accused persons who are being arraigned before the Sessions Judge, Bombay in session case No. 247 of 1986.

(2.) As could be anticipated the Gold Control authorities were quick to pick up the scent of the seizure of such a large quantity of gold and were concerned about any infraction of the Gold Control Act. A series of proceedings followed consequent upon a minuet of applications to the sessions court and it would be apposite to take note of the same at this stage.

(3.) On 1st August 1985, Ratanlal Agarwal filed an application before the Addition Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court praying that the gold ornaments which have been seized should be released to him on terms to be imposed by the Court. Ratanlal urged in his application that his son is a gold dealer and gold ornaments seized by the police "are stock-in-trade of the shop and without the stock-in-trade he cannot do his business." On 15th October 1985 the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, ordered that the gold be returned to the applicant on his undertaking that he would not change its quality or nature and upon furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- with one surety in the like amounts. By then the accused had been committed to sessions and the Principal Judge by his ordered dated the 24th April 1986 ordered that the gold may be returned to the applicant Ratanlal "in the presence of the Gold Control Authority "upon executing personal bond and a surety bond. This ordered was challenged by Ratanlal who prayed that the gold may be returned to him on his furnishing a personal bond and Kolse-Patil, J. by his order on 12th May 1986 after hearing counsel for both sides ordered that the muddemal property be returned to Ratanlal after his executing a personal bond of Rs. 15,00,000/-. After receipt of this order counsel for Ratanlal prayed before the Sessions Judge that the property be handed over in the presence of the Sessions Registrar and Judge Bhojwani on 2nd June 1986 fixed 12.00 noon on 5th June 1986 as the time when the property should be handed over by the Sessions Registrar in the Court in the presence of Gold Control Authorities. Certain clarifications were sought from the High Court and Puranik, J. by his order dated 14th of July 1986 noted that the respondent Ratanlal has "categorically stated that he has no objection if the petitioners (i.e. Gold Control Authorities' officers) are present at the time of return of the property". In view of this submission Puranik, J. discharged the rule as no further clarification was necessary. On 17th June 1986 Ratanlal received the property in the office of the Registrar of Sessions Court. As Ratanlal was walking with the property outside the Court premises the Gold Control Officers seized the property. As would be expected, a Contempt Petition being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1054 of 1986 was filed in this Court. The Division Bench of P. B. Sawant and H. H. Kantharia, JJ. by their order dated 21st July 1986 observed that the petition "is dishonest attempt on the part of the Petitioner to take possession of the gold ornaments contrary to the orders of the Court". The Division Bench after going through the order dated 15th October 1985 found that the order was hedged in such a manner so as to afford the opportunity to the Gold Control Authority to adopt such measures under the Gold Control Act as were open to them and dismissed the petition. On 8th August 1986 the petitioner Ratanlal applied to the Sessions Court praying that the personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- execute by him may be cancelled and the applicant may be discharged from the liabilities and that the Gold Control Authorities may be directed to deposit the gold ornaments in the Court. The Principal Judge of the Sessions Court rejected the application against which the present writ petition has been filed.