Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in a case of non-accountal of gold ornaments and failure to issue the prescribed receipt voucher, the confiscation should be maintained but the redemption fine and penalty reduced on the facts and circumstances.
Analysis: The ornaments were found outside the statutory records and no receipt voucher had been issued at the time of acquisition, attracting the accounting and voucher requirements under the Gold (Control) Act and the Rules. The defence based on a voucher from another jeweller and the explanation that the appellant's father had received the ornaments was examined against the surrounding circumstances, the timing of the statements, the absence of a corresponding voucher issued by the appellant's side, and the absence of a timely claim by the alleged supplier. The majority held that the explanation was not fully satisfactory, but also found that the case did not call for the harshness of the original monetary burden. The evidence indicated that the transaction was not clandestine in the sense of illicit disposal, and a lenient view was appropriate as the lapse was essentially one of statutory compliance.
Conclusion: Confiscation of the gold ornaments was sustained, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced.