Unaccounted gold and abetment: inculpatory statements upheld confiscation, but redemption and penalty relief followed for coins and co-appellant.

Voluntary, inculpatory statements recorded after seizure, supported by surrounding conduct, were sufficient to sustain confiscation and penalty for gold and ornaments found to be unaccounted stock in trade rather than third-party property. Absolute confiscation of the foreign-marked gold biscuit was maintained, but the penalty was reduced. The two gold coins were not treated as smuggled goods on the facts; redemption was permitted and the redemption fine and penalty were reduced. The abetment charge against the co-appellant failed because there was no proof of prior participation in the offence; later false documentation, at most, made him an accessory after the event, so his penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the statements recorded from the appellant and the surrounding circumstances established that the gold and ornaments were unaccounted stock in trade and not the property of third parties, so as to justify confiscation and penalty; (ii) whether the absolute confiscation of the foreign gold coins was sustainable and what consequential relief, if any, was warranted in respect of fine and penalty; (iii) whether the charge of abetment against the co-appellant was made out.

Issue (i): whether the statements recorded from the appellant and the surrounding circumstances established that the gold and ornaments were unaccounted stock in trade and not the property of third parties, so as to justify confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The seizure of gold and ornaments from the residential premises was not disputed. The statements recorded immediately after seizure were found to be voluntary, true, and clearly inculpatory, containing admissions that the goods were purchased and kept for business without being entered in the statutory accounts. The challenge based on delayed supply of copies of the statements was rejected because the mahazar referred to them, the statements were written by the appellants themselves, and their later conduct showed awareness of the contents. The belated third-party ownership plea was disbelieved in view of the earlier claim of ownership by the brother, the absence of any claim by alleged owners before the adjudicating authority, and the lack of any satisfactory explanation for the inconsistency.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the gold and ornaments and the finding of contravention were upheld, and the appellant's challenge on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): whether the absolute confiscation of the foreign gold coins was sustainable and what consequential relief, if any, was warranted in respect of fine and penalty.

Analysis: The 10 gram gold biscuit with foreign markings was held liable to absolute confiscation, but the penalty was considered excessive and reduced. As to the two gold coins, the Tribunal held that possession of such coins was not, on the facts, sufficient to treat them as smuggled goods warranting absolute confiscation. The regulatory position under the Gold (Control) Act recognising limited holding of gold coins was taken into account, and the confiscation order was modified to permit redemption. Consequentially, the redemption fine and the penalty imposed on the appellant under the Gold (Control) Act were reduced.

Conclusion: Absolute confiscation of the two gold coins was set aside, redemption was allowed, and the fine and penalty were reduced.

Issue (iii): whether the charge of abetment against the co-appellant was made out.

Analysis: The evidence did not show participation by the co-appellant in the commission of the offence before its completion. His later attempt to fabricate documents or put forward a false ownership claim could at most make him an accessory after the event. In the absence of proof of prior participation or abetment, the benefit of doubt was extended to him.

Conclusion: The penalty on the co-appellant was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained against the first appellant in substance, but the confiscation and monetary consequences were moderated in part, while the second appellant was exonerated of abetment and relieved of penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary and corroborated inculpatory statement, together with surrounding conduct, may sustain confiscation and penalty for unaccounted gold, but a person cannot be held liable for abetment absent proof of prior participation in the offence; subsequent falsification or a false claim makes one only an accessory after the event.

---