Retracted confession and weak corroboration cannot sustain gold trading contravention without proof of actual business conduct.

A conviction for unauthorised trading in gold under the Gold (Control) Act could not be sustained where the alleged confession was retracted and found unreliable, and the remaining evidence did not prove actual trading beyond reasonable doubt. The seizure of ornaments from the accused's house, without recovery of trading equipment or testimony from any witness seeing gold business, was insufficient to establish contravention. The ornaments were also not shown to exceed the permissible free allowance. On that material, the benefit of doubt applied and the acquittal was properly maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had contravened Section 27(1) read with Section 85(viii) and Section 85(ix) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 by carrying on business in gold ornaments, and whether the acquittal warranted interference.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested mainly on the seizure of gold ornaments from the accused's house and on a statement alleged to be a confession, but the statement was retracted and was found unreliable. The departmental revision had already held that the statement should be ignored and that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Magistrate had also found that no trading equipment was recovered, no witness saw the accused trading in gold, and the ornaments were not shown to be beyond the permissible free allowance. In these circumstances, there was no substantive evidence to establish contravention of the Act.

Conclusion: The accused did not fail to establish a contravention of Section 27(1) read with Section 85(viii) and Section 85(ix) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and the acquittal was rightly sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was liable to be dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for unauthorised trading in gold cannot be sustained where the alleged confession is retracted and unreliable, and the remaining evidence does not prove actual trading or contravention beyond reasonable doubt.

---