The possession of gold without a license is an offence punishable under Section 85(1) read with Section 8(1) (i) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

This petition coming on for hearing on Thursday the 2nd day of January, 1986 and on this day upon perusing the petition, and the Judgment of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. A. Panchapakesan, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. P Rajamanickam, Central Government Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent the Court made the following order :

This criminal revision case is filed by the accused Gyanchand Jain against the judgment dated 29-11-1982 in C.A. No. 393 of 1981, on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner herein under Section 85(1) read with Section 8(1) (i) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the sentence of imprisonment for six months imposed on him by the trial Court.

2.The case of the prosecution against the revision petitioner is that on 13-9-1979 at about 5.15 p.m. at Madras Central Railway Station at Platform No. 1, he was found in possession, custody and control of six bars of primary gold weighing 2, 747 grams in all and valued at Rs. 3, 16, 000 without a licence and thereby contravened the provisions of Section 8(1) (i) of the Gold Control act and committed an offence punishable under Section 85(1) of the Act. The revision petitioner is aged about 26 years and belongs to Raipur, Madhya Pradesh. When he got down from the Tamil Nadu express train which came from New Delhi at 5.15 p.m. on 13-9-1979 at Central Railway Station, P.W. 1 Vaikundam, Inspector of Police and P.W. 2 Vittal Kidhiri, Deputy Superintendent of Police on suspicion searched the revision petitioner and found M.O. 7 series two gold bars, M.O. 8 series two gold bars and M.O. 9 series two gold bars kept in a paper packet, M.Os. 4, 5 and 6 respectively and all of them kept in M.O. 1 suit case. The total weight of the gold bars was 2, 747 grams. The value of the gold on that date was Rs. 3, 16, 000. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W. Vaikundam, P.W. 2 Vittal Kadhiri, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotics Intelligence Bureau, P.W. 3 S. Jayanth, Inspector of Police, P.W. 4 K. Ramasubramaniam, Superintendent of Police, Central Excise division, Madras, P.W. 5 S. Vilas and P.W. 6 Mani, Inspector of Central Railway Police, were examined. Ex. P.1 Mahazar for the seizure of M.Os. 1 to 13, Ex. P.2 First Information report relating to the case registered against the revision petitioner herein, Ex. P.3 letter written by P.W. 2 to the excise Department, dated 15-9-1979, Ex. P. 4 office copy of the letter written by the Excise Inspector before the Court of the learned Magistrate for the entrustment of the accused with him, Ex. P. 5 copy of the order relating to the entrustment of the accused with the Excise Department for two days, Ex. P. 6 mahazar dated 17-9-1979 regarding the seizure of documents and materials and Ex. P. 7 statement of the accused dated 17-9-1979, were filed on behalf of the accused before the trial Court. M.O. 1 suit case, M.O. 2 one blue colour rexine bag, M.O. 3 a cloth bag, M.O. 5 paper packet, M.O. 6 another paper packet M.O. 7 series two gold bars, M.O. 8 series two gold bars, M.O. 9 series two gold bars, M.O. 10 Railway ticket kept by the accused, M.O. 11 Reservation Receipt, M.O. 12 lock with which M.O. 1 was locked and M.O. 13 bunch of keys recovered from the accused were also produced before the trial Court.

3.As already stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 13-9-1979 at about 5.15 p.m. on information while keeping watch for contraband articles at Central Station, Madras, the revision petitioner was detained and on a check of a suit case carried by him, 6 bars of gold weighing about 2, 747 kg. worth about Rs. 3 lakhs was recovered from his personal possession. The gold bars were kept in a specially made cloth pouch and was kept in a zip bag along with the clothes in the suit case. There were no bills of purchase or any document and the revision petitioner confessed that h