Gold Control Act licence breach upheld where seized ornaments were found to belong to the shop owner.

The Bombay High Court upheld the revisional order under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, finding that the shop owner had dealt in gold without a valid licence and therefore contravened Section 27(1). The Court accepted the authorities' conclusion that the seized gold ornaments belonged to the shop owner, relying on the statements of the parties and surrounding circumstances, and rejected the claim that the ornaments were merely held for safekeeping. The challenge to the penalties and confiscation failed, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner had contravened Section 27(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 by carrying on business as a dealer in gold without a valid licence, and whether the finding recorded by the revisional authority was liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 27(1) prohibits carrying on business as a dealer without a valid licence, and the definition of "dealer" in Section 2(h) is of wide amplitude so as to include various forms of dealing in gold and gold ornaments. The ornaments were found in a safe under the petitioner's control, and the contemporaneous statements of the petitioners, recorded immediately after the raid, showed that petitioner No. 1 was in charge of the shop, supervised the goldsmith work, and had control over the ornaments. The authorities accepted this evidence and rejected the claim of safe custody for the other petitioners. In writ jurisdiction, the Court does not reappraise evidence as an appellate forum, and the finding must stand if there is material on which a reasonable person could have reached it.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention of Section 27(1) was sustained and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory definition of dealer is broad and the factual finding that a person carried on business in gold without a licence is supported by material evidence, such finding will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction merely because a different view of the evidence is possible.

---