Conscious possession under the Gold Control Act requires proof beyond statutory presumptions, and liability was not established here.

The Gold (Control) Act presumption for gold found in business premises applies only to the licensed dealer and not to the manager or other employees. Illegal possession under the Act requires proof of conscious possession or custody, and the prosecution failed to establish such control against either petitioner. The statutory presumption as to mental state was also rebutted by evidence showing lack of knowledge and unchallenged defence explanations about how the gold came to be in the shop. As the prosecution did not prove illegal possession beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction, sentence and forfeiture order could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the statutory presumption under Section 33 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 applied against a licensed dealer alone or could also be extended to the manager and other employees; (ii) whether the petitioners had conscious possession or custody of the seized primary gold so as to attract Section 85(1)(ii) of the Act; (iii) whether the prosecution established the offence in view of the rebuttal of the presumption regarding mental state under Section 98-B of the Act.

Issue (i): whether the statutory presumption under Section 33 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 applied against a licensed dealer alone or could also be extended to the manager and other employees.

Analysis: Section 33 creates a deeming presumption only in respect of the licensed dealer in whose business premises the gold is found. The provision does not, by its language or scheme, extend the same presumption to the manager or other employees. In a criminal prosecution, liability cannot be widened by inference beyond the charging provision.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 33 applied only to the licensed dealer and not to the manager or other employees.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioners had conscious possession or custody of the seized primary gold so as to attract Section 85(1)(ii) of the Act.

Analysis: The licensed dealer was absent from the premises and the evidence showed that the business was being managed by another person. The defence evidence, including the explanation that the gold belonged to the mother and had been placed in the shop without the knowledge of the second petitioner, remained substantially unshaken. The prosecution did not establish conscious possession or exclusive control of the gold by either petitioner.

Conclusion: Conscious possession or custody of the seized gold was not proved against either petitioner under Section 85(1)(ii).

Issue (iii): whether the prosecution established the offence in view of the rebuttal of the presumption regarding mental state under Section 98-B of the Act.

Analysis: The statutory presumption as to mental state was rebutted by evidence showing absence of knowledge and absence of conscious keeping of the gold in the premises. The defence evidence was not effectively challenged and was accepted as sufficient to displace the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 98-B stood rebutted and the offence was not established.

Final Conclusion: The conviction, sentence, and forfeiture order could not be sustained, as the prosecution failed to prove illegal possession of the seized gold against the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Gold (Control) Act, a deeming presumption about gold found in a dealer's premises is confined to the licensed dealer, and criminal liability for illegal possession requires proof of conscious possession unless the statutory presumption is successfully invoked and not rebutted.

---