Finished gold ornaments finding led to quashing of prosecution, with return of seized articles and penalty refund.

Where the competent tribunal found that the seized gold articles were fully finished gold ornaments and not primary gold under the Gold (Control) Act, continuation of the criminal complaint on the same factual controversy was treated as inexpedient. The tribunal had already set aside confiscation and exonerated the petitioner on that basis, and the pending reference application did not change the effect of that finding. The prosecution was therefore quashed, with directions for return of the seized gold articles and refund of the penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 should be quashed and the seized gold articles and penalty returned after the appellate tribunal found that the articles were finished gold ornaments and not primary gold.

Analysis: The Tribunal, after examining the gold articles and the evidence, recorded a finding that the articles were fully finished gold chains and did not answer the definition of primary gold under the Act. On that basis, it set aside the confiscation order and exonerated the petitioner. The criminal complaint was founded on the same factual controversy, namely whether the seized articles were primary gold. In such circumstances, where the competent fact-finding authority under the Act had already returned a finding in favour of the petitioner, continuation of the prosecution was held to be inexpedient. The pendency of a reference application did not alter this position.

Conclusion: The prosecution was quashed, and directions were issued for return of the seized gold articles and refund of the penalty, in favour of the petitioner.

---