Burden of proof in Gold Control penalty proceedings: suspicion cannot replace acceptable legal evidence against the appellant.

In penal proceedings under the Gold Control Act, the department had to prove contravention by acceptable legal evidence. The only material relied on was a statement suggesting the gold was intended for delivery to the appellant and surrounding circumstances, which created suspicion but did not establish the charge. The adjudicating authority erred in shifting the burden to the appellant to prove innocence. As the charge was not brought home on the evidence, the penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 could be sustained when the department had not adduced acceptable legal evidence to connect the appellant with the seized gold.

Analysis: The proceedings were penal in nature, so the burden lay on the department to establish the charge of contravention by acceptable legal evidence. The only material relied upon was a statement that the gold was intended to be delivered to the appellant and certain surrounding circumstances. Those materials, at best, created suspicion. The adjudicating authority also erred in treating the appellant's failure to prove innocence as a basis for confirming the penalty, whereas the obligation was on the department to prove the charge.

Conclusion: The charge was not brought home against the appellant and the penalty could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In penal proceedings under the Gold Control Act, the department must prove contravention by acceptable legal evidence, and suspicion however grave cannot replace proof.

---