Statutory presumptions under the Gold Control law apply only after proof of possession, custody or control of primary gold.

In a prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 98B and 99 arise only after the prosecution first proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had possession, custody or control of the primary gold. The evidence showed tenancy of the flat, but not satisfactory proof that the accused used the bedroom, controlled the almirah, or was the head of the family; those links could not be inferred by conjecture. Because the foundational fact was not established, the presumptions could not be invoked and the conviction under Section 85(i)(ii) was unsustainable, entitling the accused to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had possession, custody or control of the primary gold so as to sustain conviction under Section 85(i)(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and attract the statutory presumptions under Sections 98B and 99 of the Act.

Analysis: The prosecution was required to establish, by clear and cogent evidence, the foundational fact that the primary gold was in the accused's possession, custody or control. The evidence showed that the accused was the tenant of the flat, but there was no satisfactory evidence identifying his use of the bedroom or connecting him with the almirah from which the gold was recovered. The prosecution also did not prove that he was the head of the family, and that finding could not be based on conjecture. Since the fact of possession, custody or control was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presumptions under Section 98B(1) and Section 99 could not be invoked. The prosecution could not rely on any weakness in the defence to fill this evidentiary gap.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 85(i)(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was unsustainable and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act, the statutory presumptions of culpable mental state and ownership arise only after the prosecution first proves, beyond reasonable doubt, the foundational fact of possession, custody or control of the primary gold.

---