https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73651 Evidence from the raid, seizure lists, sample analysis and the accused's admissions established that the seized material was primary gold exceeding nine carats. The accused failed to prove lawful possession with reliable documents or credible surrounding circumstances, so possession was treated as unauthorized under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and liability under the penal provision followed. On cognizance, the Act required a written complaint by a duly authorized Gold Control Officer; a complaint filed by the Assistant Collector on written authority from the jurisdictional Collector satisfied that requirement. The text states that the trial conviction was restored and the acquittal set aside. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73651 Evidence from the raid, seizure lists, sample analysis and the accused's admissions established that the seized material was primary gold exceeding nine carats. The accused failed to prove lawful possession with reliable documents or credible surrounding circumstances, so possession was treated as unauthorized under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and liability under the penal provision followed. On cognizance, the Act required a written complaint by a duly authorized Gold Control Officer; a complaint filed by the Assistant Collector on written authority from the jurisdictional Collector satisfied that requirement. The text states that the trial conviction was restored and the acquittal set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73651