Proof of foreign origin is essential for Customs conviction, while Gold Control presumptions stand unless rebutted by credible evidence.

Possession of gold ornaments and primary gold was upheld on the basis of search witnesses, the seizure list and surrounding documents, which established that the petitioner occupied the searched premises and held the seized articles. For conviction under the Customs Act, the prosecution failed to prove that the gold biscuit was imported gold or of foreign origin, and the sanction was treated as mechanical for want of proper material; the Customs conviction was therefore set aside. Under the Gold (Control) Act, the complaint was duly authorised and the statutory presumptions as to possession, ownership and culpable mental state were not rebutted by credible evidence, so the conviction under that Act was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was in possession of the searched premises and the seized gold ornaments and primary gold were recovered from his possession; (ii) Whether the seized gold biscuit was proved to be imported gold or gold of foreign origin so as to sustain conviction under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether the sanction under Section 137 of that Act was valid; (iii) Whether the complaint under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was duly authorised and whether the petitioner rebutted the statutory presumption regarding possession and ownership of gold under that Act.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was in possession of the searched premises and the seized gold ornaments and primary gold were recovered from his possession.

Analysis: The evidence of the official search witnesses, supported by the seizure list and the surrounding documents, was accepted as proving that the petitioner occupied the premises searched and that gold ornaments and primary gold were recovered from his possession. The defence documents did not dislodge the factual finding of possession, and the fact of possession was treated as material even apart from strict ownership of the premises.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and the finding of possession and recovery was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized gold biscuit was proved to be imported gold or gold of foreign origin so as to sustain conviction under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether the sanction under Section 137 of that Act was valid.

Analysis: The evidence did not prove that the seized biscuit was imported gold or gold of foreign origin. The Court found that the witnesses were uncertain about the alleged foreign origin and that neither the seizure materials nor the other evidence established import from outside India. Since liability to confiscation under Section 111 was not proved, the sanction was held to have been accorded mechanically and without due application of mind.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner and the conviction under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaint under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was duly authorised and whether the petitioner rebutted the statutory presumption regarding possession and ownership of gold under that Act.

Analysis: The authorisation to file the complaint under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was upheld as valid. The Court applied the statutory presumptions as to culpable mental state and ownership of gold and held that the petitioner failed to rebut them with cogent evidence. The defence version that the ornaments belonged to another person was not proved, and the concurrent finding that the petitioner possessed gold in contravention of that Act was sustained.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and the conviction under Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court interfered only with the conviction under the Customs Act, 1962, while sustaining the conviction and sentence under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, resulting in partial relief to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for possession of imported or foreign-origin gold under the Customs Act requires proof of import/foreign origin and valid sanction based on relevant material, whereas under the Gold (Control) Act the statutory presumptions as to ownership and culpable mental state operate unless rebutted by credible evidence.

---