DHARAM PAL JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 17 nacklace, 4, chains, 1 Mangal Sutar, 27 Rings, 21 pairs of ear tops, 4 pandles, 7 pieces of ear tops, 6 pieces of nose studs and two pieces of gold chas of 20 caret gold were alleged to have been recovered from Dharam Pal Jain petitioner on 20.5.1976 and the Customs Authorities made a complaint against him and his brother and other partners that they were found in possession of the said gold ornaments in violation of Section 85(viii) read with Section 87 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The Customs Department interpreted the situation that these ornaments were the property of the firm. However, the firm was holding a licence under the Gold Control Act, 1968. Simultaneously, it is also the case of Dharam Pal Jain accused that he declared under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, the gold ornaments weighing 1957 grams owned by himself in HUF status and that he had obtained a certificate Ex.DY from the Commissioner of Income Tax to this effect.

(2.) The only observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, is that such a certificate is of no help. Why it is of no help has not been interpreted in the judgment in any way while recording a finding of conviction. Recovery pertains to 20.5.1976 and the prosecution initiated its proceedings in the year 1983 i.e. after seven years and the decision was rendered by the trial Court in 1986, the appeal was decided in the year 1987 and now we are in the year 2000. Such an inordinate delay in prosecution which would cause a very serious prejudice to the interest of any person, may be an accused, would not be covered by some literary quotations and maxims used by the learned trial Court. So when the property is held to be that of the firm and they had a valid licence and if it is held to be that of Dharam Pal Jain accused, who has obtained a certificate regarding disclosure, therefore, the question of commission of any offence would not arise. Hence the revision is allowed and the petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Revision allowed.