Unlicensed gold dealer business requires proof of actual business activity, not a single intended sale of ornaments.

Carrying on business as a gold dealer without a licence under Section 27(1) requires proof of business activity, not merely possession of gold ornaments or an intention to sell them. On the facts, the department relied only on the appellant's presence in a dealer's premises and his statement that he had come to sell ornaments, but found no independent evidence or search material showing prior dealer activity. A single or stray proposed sale was held insufficient to establish contravention, and the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to carrying on business as a dealer in gold without a valid licence so as to attract contravention under Section 27(1) of the Gold (Control) Act.

Analysis: Section 27(1) prohibits carrying on business as a gold dealer without a licence. The department's case rested only on the appellant's possession of gold ornaments in a dealer's premises and his statement that he had come there to sell them. No independent evidence showed that he had been carrying on business as a dealer in gold, and no material was found in search to indicate prior business activity. A single or stray act of intended sale does not satisfy the statutory requirement of carrying on business.

Conclusion: The charge under Section 27(1) failed, and the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were set aside in favour of the appellant.

---