Primary gold under the Gold Control Act requires statutory unfinished form; worn gold bangles did not meet that test.

The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 distinction between "primary gold" and "ornament" turned on the statutory form of the seized articles, not merely on their purity. Circular gold bangles worn on the arms were treated as ornaments, and the approved gold tester stated that such bangles were commonly used by villagers as personal adornment. As there was no evidence that the articles were unfinished or otherwise within the statutory description of primary gold, the conviction was unsustainable and the sentence could not be enhanced; both were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the gold articles seized from the respondent were "primary gold" within the meaning of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, so as to sustain the conviction and any prayer for enhancement of sentence.

Analysis: The statutory definition of "primary gold" covered gold in unfinished form and specified unfinished forms such as ingots, bars, blocks, billets, slabs, rods, sheets, foils and wires, while "ornament" meant a finished article meant for personal adornment. The evidence showed that the seized articles were circular gold bangles worn on the arms, and the prosecution witness who was an approved gold tester stated that such bangles were commonly used as ornaments by villagers. The conviction could not rest merely on 24 carat purity, and there was no evidence that the articles were unfinished or otherwise answered the statutory description of primary gold.

Conclusion: The conviction was unsustainable for want of evidence that the seized articles were primary gold; the sentence therefore could not be enhanced and both conviction and sentence were set aside.

---