Gold Control Act non-declaration of excess ornaments is a statutory offence; ignorance and absence of mens rea were no defence.

Failure to declare excess gold ornaments within the prescribed time under the Gold Control Act, 1968 was treated as a statutory default, and ignorance of that obligation was not accepted as a defence. The Court held that mens rea was not an essential ingredient for offences under Section 85(viii) and Section 16(g) read with Section 86, and that prior disclosure to income-tax or wealth-tax authorities did not cure non-compliance with the gold control declaration requirement. On that basis, the acquittal was unsustainable and the direction to return the confiscated jewels could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was liable for failure to declare excess gold ornaments under the Gold Control Act, 1968, whether ignorance of law or absence of mens rea afforded a defence, and whether the acquittal and return of the confiscated gold could be sustained.

Analysis: The accused was found to be in lawful possession of gold ornaments in excess of the permitted limit and had not made the required declaration within the prescribed time under Section 16 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The Court held that ignorance of the legal requirement could not excuse the omission, and that mens rea was not an essential ingredient for offences under Section 85(viii) and Section 16(g) read with Section 86 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The earlier declaration to income-tax and wealth-tax authorities did not negate the statutory default. The acquittal was therefore unsustainable, and the direction to return the confiscated gold could not stand.

Conclusion: The accused was guilty of the offences under Section 85(viii) and Section 86 read with Section 16(g) of the Gold Control Act, 1968, and the acquittal and order for return of the confiscated jewels were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: For offences under the Gold Control Act, 1968 relating to non-declaration of excess gold, ignorance of the statutory obligation does not constitute reasonable cause, and mens rea is not a necessary ingredient where the statute imposes liability for failure to make the required declaration.

---