Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved that the seized biscuits were gold within the meaning of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and thereby established the charge under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The evidence did not establish that the seized articles satisfied the statutory definition of gold. No expert or scientific evidence proved the purity of the biscuits to be not less than nine carats, and the witness who was said to have tested them did not support the prosecution. The remaining witnesses were not shown to be competent experts on purity, and their testimony contained discrepancies regarding recovery and recording of the accused's statements. In these circumstances, the initial burden to prove that the seized articles were gold was not discharged, so the presumption under the Customs law could not arise.
Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient that the seized biscuits were gold, and the charge against the respondents was not established.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the acquittal was maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution based on seizure of alleged gold, the prosecution must first prove by reliable evidence that the seized articles are gold within the statutory definition before any statutory presumption or conviction can follow.