Uncorroborated handwriting expert opinion cannot by itself sustain a gold-control penalty; confiscation remained undisturbed.

Penalty for unauthorised dealings in gold and failure to maintain true and complete accounts could not be sustained where it rested entirely on an untested handwriting expert's opinion. The expert was not produced for cross-examination despite repeated requests, no independent corroboration was adduced, and the adjudicating authority did not independently compare the disputed writings with admitted specimens. The evidence was therefore too weak to support the penalty. Confiscation of the gold and ornaments, however, was left undisturbed, and the penalty under the Gold (Control) Act was set aside only to that extent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for unauthorised dealings in gold and failure to maintain true and complete accounts could stand when the finding rested solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert who was not offered for cross-examination and whose opinion was uncorroborated by independent evidence.

Analysis: The penalty was founded entirely on the handwriting expert's opinion that the disputed account books and slips were written by the same person who made entries in the GS-13 Register. That opinion was not tested by cross-examination despite repeated requests, and no independent evidence such as customer testimony, vouchers, bills, or other supporting material was brought on record. Expert opinion, especially handwriting opinion, is weak and infirm evidence and cannot safely be treated as conclusive without corroboration. The adjudicating authority also did not independently scrutinise the disputed writings against admitted writings. On these facts, the evidentiary basis for the penalty was insufficient. The confiscation of the gold and ornaments was not disturbed.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could not be sustained and was set aside; the appeal succeeded only to that extent.

---