The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of witness credibility, the legality of search and seizure, and the application of relevant legal provisions in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

SOMNATH IYER, J. :-This is an appeal from an order of acquittal by the State Government in a case in which the respondent who was the accused was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Sections 6 and 13 of the Mysore Mines Act (Mysore Act IV of 1906). The accusation against him was that he was in unlawful possession of a substance described as mining sponge gold weighing a little less than five and half Tolas of the value of Rs. 673-31 when he was searched in a place near the Gandhi Statue in front of the Khadi Bhandar shop, Robertsonpet at 6-30 P.M. on September 10, 1963. The Magistrate accepted the story of the prosecution that the substance which was examined by P. W 1 an assayer attached to the Mysore Mines, was sponge gold.

Sponge gold as defined by Section 2(6) (b) of the Mysore Mines Act which will be referred to as the Act, is a mining material. Section 6 makes it an offence for a person to be in possession of any mining material without the written permission of the mining proprietor or the superintendent and when a person is unable to prove that his possession or such mining material was lawful. Section 13 prescribes the penalty which may be imposed on a person committing an offence under Section 6.

2. P. W. 7 a circle inspector attched to the detective branch of Oorgaum, gave evidence that at about 6-30 P. M. on September 10, 1963, he acquired information that the accused was on his way to his residence in Robertsonpet with mining gold. His evidence was that the accused was waylaid near the Mahatma Gandhi Statue in Robertsonpet when he arrived there ten or fifteen minutes later and that a little less than five and a half Tolas of sponge gold was produced by him from one of the pockets of his shirt. P. Ws. 2, 5 and 6 were the witnesses who were, according to the witness, present when the gold was seized. Exhibit P-2 was the Mahazar prepared at 6-20 P. M. on that day in which a record was made of the seizure of the gold.

3. The effect of the evidence given by P. Ws. 5, 6 and 7 was that the gold consisted of six balls of sponge gold and some powder which were found wrapped up in pieces of news paper marked M. O. 2. After that substance was produced, M. O. 1, a white paper, was used for wrapping up that packet and in the presence of the witnesses it was sealed and a sample seal was handed over to P. W. 2.

4. The accused repudiated the prosecution story that he produced the sponge gold as alleged. His version was that on that evening he had visited his physician D. W. 1 to get his child treated and that as advised by his physician he was on his way to purchase some oranges for his child when he was stopped by the police. He stated that he did not on that occasion produce any gold and that a false case was foisted against him.

5. The Magistrate was persuaded to think that the prosecution did not establish its story that any sponge gold was produced by the accused or found on his person when he was stopped near the Mahatma Gandhi Statue in Robertsonpet as stated by P. Ws. 2, 5, 6 and 7. He gave many reasons for coming to that conclusion and every one of them is assailed by Mr. Bhimsenachari Ashrit, the learned Government pleader, as founded upon either incorrect understanding of the law or an unreasonable assessment of the evidence.

6. The first criticism made by Mr. Ashrit was that the Magistrate was not right in thinking that the witnesses who were present when the accused was stopped near the Mahatma Gandhi Statue when he is stated to have produced sponge gold from his shirt pocket, were not inhabitants of the locality in which the Mahatma Gandhi Statue was situate and that therefore there was a contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which requires that before making a search under Chapter VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure the officer or person about to make that search shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the localit