Appellant's Gold Act violation penalty upheld despite reduced fine; active involvement proven.

The judgment upholds the penalty imposed on the appellant under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, for contravention of Section 8(1)(2) of the Act. The appellant's involvement in acquiring possession of contraband gold and assisting in its concealment led to the dismissal of the appeal, despite a reduced penalty of Rs. 500 due to the appellant's circumstances. The court found the appellant's active participation in the offense established, emphasizing the legal concept of possession and supporting the decision to sustain the penalty under Section 75 of the Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of prior deposit of penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Allegations of abetment and contravention under Section 8(1)(2) of the Act.
3. Reduction of penalty based on circumstances of the appellant.

Issue 1: Application for Waiver of Prior Deposit of Penalty
The judgment addresses an application seeking waiver of prior deposit of penalty of Rs. 1,000 imposed on the appellant under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The order grants waiver of prior deposit pending disposal of the appeal on the same day.

Issue 2: Allegations of Abetment and Contravention
The appellant was intercepted along with two others in possession of foreign origin gold biscuits, leading to seizure and subsequent proceedings. The appellant was alleged to have agreed to acquire possession, custody, or control of the gold, as evidenced by inculpatory statements and corroborated by other evidence. The judgment finds the charge of contravention under Section 8(1)(2) of the Act established, dismissing the appellant's contention of lack of abetment charge. The appellant's involvement in assisting in packing and concealing the contraband gold supports the finding of contravention.

Issue 3: Reduction of Penalty
The appellant, claiming poverty and being a victim of circumstances, sought reduction of the penalty. Despite the reduction from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 500, based on the appellant's circumstances and previous jail time, the appeal was otherwise dismissed. The judgment emphasizes the factual evidence supporting the contravention charge and the appellant's active involvement in the offense, leading to the decision to sustain the penalty under Section 75 of the Act.

This judgment upholds the penalty imposed on the appellant under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, based on the established contravention of Section 8(1)(2) of the Act. The detailed analysis highlights the appellant's active participation in the offense, including agreeing to acquire possession, custody, or control of the contraband gold. Despite the reduction in penalty due to the appellant's circumstances, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the legal concept of possession and the appellant's role in facilitating the transportation of the contraband gold.

---