Proof of lawful seizure and mandatory sanction is essential in contraband gold prosecutions; acquittal was affirmed.

In a prosecution for possession and seizure of contraband gold, the prosecution must prove lawful recovery from the accused's exclusive possession through reliable evidence; here, independent panch witnesses did not support the alleged seizure, departmental evidence alone was insufficient, and the record did not establish exclusive possession or custody, so the seizure and possession were not proved. The prosecution must also prove any mandatory sanction for prosecution through admissible evidence; here, the alleged sanction was not marked through a witness and was therefore not established. The acquittal was affirmed because the foundational facts and the mandatory sanction were both left unproved.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the prosecution proved lawful seizure and possession of the gold pellets by the accused; (ii) whether the requisite sanction for prosecution was proved.

Issue (i): whether the prosecution proved lawful seizure and possession of the gold pellets by the accused.

Analysis: The independent panch witnesses did not support the seizure, having stated that their signatures were obtained in the customs office and that they were not aware of the contents of the mahazar. The evidence of departmental witnesses alone was found insufficient on the facts, especially when no respectable independent witnesses were secured despite the alleged recovery of a large quantity of gold. The record also did not establish that the gold was recovered from the exclusive possession or custody of the first respondent, or that the place from which it was said to have been seized was shown to be under his possession.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove seizure and possession of the gold pellets by the accused.

Issue (ii): whether the requisite sanction for prosecution was proved.

Analysis: The sanction said to have been obtained for prosecuting the respondents was not marked through any witness, and therefore the mandatory requirement for prosecution was not established on evidence.

Conclusion: The sanction for prosecution was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was affirmed because the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts for conviction and also failed to prove the mandatory sanction.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for possession and seizure of contraband gold, the prosecution must prove recovery and possession by reliable evidence and must also prove any mandatory sanction for prosecution.

---