BENECHAND BHOMRAJ KOTHARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the competence of the petitioner's trial under Rule 126 of the Gold Control Rules, 1963 for possession of 720100 grams of primary gold. The accused took a preliminary objection before the trial Magistrate that his prosecution was barred under Section 408, Criminal P. C. The trial Magistrate rejected the contention. The accused filed a revision in the Sessions Court which too has been dismissed.

(2.) SHRI Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, narrates the following facts. On 6 May 1983, the house of the petitioner was searched under Section 126 (2) of the Gold Control Rules, and according to the prosecution 720-100 grams of primary gold was seized from his possession. The Collector, Central Excise, gave him notice to show cause why he should not be penalized. After hearing him, the Collector, Central Excise, held him guilty under Section 126 (1) and imposed ft penalty of Sections 250 under Section 126l (16) of the Gold Control Rules. Further, he directed confiscation of the gold under Section 126-M, but under Clause (8) of the said Rule, he gave option to the petitioner to pay, in lieu of confiscation of the gold, a fine of Rs. 2000. Subsequent to these-proceedings, the petitioner was put up for trial under Rule 126-P of the Gold Control Rules. It is this trial in the criminal Court, which is challenged as illegal and barred by Section 408, Criminal P. C. , on the plea of putrefies convict. In this petition the trial is further assailed as being in violation of the fundamental right under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised by the accused, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Gold Control Rules, 1968: