TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (4) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....68, but reduced the sentence from two years R.I. on these counts to nine months' R.I. Criminal Revision No. 213 of 1981 is against this very order of the Additional Sessions Judge but only in respect of that portion of the order by means of which the sentence of the applicant was reduced. 2. Breifly stated, the facts involved in the case are that on 12-10-1974 a joint raid was made by the Central Excise Department. Income-tax and Sales Tax and the police at the residence of Chandra Prakash and that Lalit Kumar applicant son of Chandra Prakash was not present, but Chandra Prakash himself was present in the house and three Bahikhatas containing entries of gold transactions (Ext. 1 to Ext. 3) were recovered from a bag in his possession....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered necessary prior clearance from Gold Control Administrator should be taken in each case. This clearly shows that by means of this circular letter the Government of India imposed a restriction on the functions of the Gold Control Officers and said that except where the Gold was foreign marked or was smuggled prosecution in no case should be launched unless clearance had been obtained from the Government of India. In this particular case no clearance at all was obtained from the Government of India in respect of this prosecution and P.W. 1 H.R. Kataria, Assistant Collector, imposed by the Central Government. It would, therefore, seem that this prosecution should not have been launched and cognizance of the offence should not have been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e seen that when these Bahikhatas were seized Chandra Prakash did not say that these Bahikhatas were not of his firm. These Bahikhatas were of the firm Chandra Prakash Rajendra Prasad. They were recovered from a bag which Chandra Prakash was carrying. Chandra Prakash was found carrying these Bahikhatas inside a bag and was apprehended inside his own house and an endorsement was made by him that these Bahikhatas were of his firm and had been recovered from his possession. In spite of its on a mere statement made by Chandra Prakash subsequently it was believed that they were not of the firm of Chandra Prakash and his son Lalit Kumar was prosecuted who has now denied that these Bahikhatas were of his firm and that he is in any way liable for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om heart ailment and in order to avoid a shock to him his son Lalit Kumar contended that the Bahikhatas were of his business. 7. The entries of these Bahikhatas were also not proved and only three extracts made from these Bahikhatas were proved as Excts. Ka-5, Ka-6 and Ka-7. Under Section 65, Evidence Act, secondary Evidence could not be given because the original Bahikhatas were on record and even if secondary evidence could be given it was necessary for prosecution to prove the correctness of the original entries, and to prove that the extract were true copies of the original. P.W. 3 D.C. Ahuja and P.W. 4 Ram Nath were the two witnesses who were examined to prove these entries. Ram Nath said that these were two extracts but did no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stomers, but the entries in these Bahikhatas were not at all proved to show that so much of gold or cash was taken and converted into ornaments. For these various reasons, therefore, the applicant could not be convicted and the question of setting aside the order reducing the entries on him cannot arise. 11. It would thus be seen that the Gold Control Officer was to work under such restrictions which were imposed on him by the Central Government, Central Government had imposed a restriction on him that such prosecution shall not be filed unless clearance had been obtained from the Gold Control Administrator but no such clearance was obtained from the Gold Control Administrator and then the complaint was filed. The three Bahikhatas i....