Circumstantial evidence and selective non-prosecution did not defeat conviction for undeclared foreign gold possession and concealment.

A complete chain of circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction for possession and attempted concealment of undeclared foreign gold where the surrounding facts, writings, torn newspaper and timing of the search collectively point to the accused and exclude other plausible actors. The plea of discrimination based on the Gold Bond Scheme fails because selective non-prosecution of some persons does not, by itself, establish unconstitutional discrimination against those prosecuted. The convictions and sentences were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for possessing and attempting to conceal undeclared foreign gold could be sustained on circumstantial evidence. (ii) Whether the plea of discrimination based on the Gold Bond Scheme afforded a defence to the prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for possessing and attempting to conceal undeclared foreign gold could be sustained on circumstantial evidence.

Analysis: The evidence showed that bags containing gold were thrown from the accused's flat at the very time the search was imminent. The slips found with the gold matched writings admittedly made by the accused, the torn newspaper found with the gold corresponded with a newspaper in the flat, and the circumstances excluded the other persons present, including the son and the wife, as plausible actors. The surrounding facts, including the location from which the bags must have fallen and the immediate discovery of the gold, formed a complete chain pointing to the accused.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld on circumstantial evidence and the finding of possession of undeclared gold was sustained against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of discrimination based on the Gold Bond Scheme afforded a defence to the prosecution.

Analysis: The argument was that persons who converted gold into bonds were treated differently from those prosecuted for possession of undeclared gold. The Court held that the fact that some persons were not prosecuted did not create unlawful discrimination against those who were prosecuted. Selective non-prosecution does not by itself establish unconstitutional discrimination.

Conclusion: The discrimination plea was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the convictions and sentences were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A complete and coherent chain of circumstantial evidence may sustain a conviction for unlawful possession of undeclared gold, and the mere fact that some similarly placed persons are not prosecuted does not establish discrimination.

---