Stock of gold to be kept in the prescribed premises.

The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur is the appellant. He challenges the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No. 45 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Ernakulam. The accused was tried on two counts, viz., for the viola! ion of Ss 27(7)(b) and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act 1968; these offences are made punishable under S.35(1) of the Act.

2. The accused is a gold dealer having his place of business at Trichur in the name and style “Chemmannur Jewellers.” P.W.1, the Superintendent of Preventive Unit, Trichur searched the premises of the place of business of the accused on 23-9-1981 between 10.45 a.m. and 7 p.m. The accounts maintained in the shop were verified and the entire stock of gold was also physically verified. As per the account, the accused should have a stock of 1372 pieces of gold ornaments having a total weight of 11075.400 grams, but on physical verification of the accounts the total weight was 11061.50 grams and the shortage was to the extent of 13.900 grams by weight On the very same day P.W.I and his subordinates made search on the 3rd floor of the very same building, where the accused’s shop is housed, and found in a cord board box 169 pieces of gold ornaments consisting of 31 bangles, 15 rings, 59 lockets, talies, cross etc. The total weight of these 169 pieces was 667.850 grams and on the prevailing market rate it was worth about Rs.1,10,000. P.W.1, who was convinced that the gold found in the shop was liable to be confiscated, prepared Ext, P8 mahazar. On the very same day P.W.1 also conducted a search in a sister concern of the accused, namely, “Nedumpadam Rubbers”. But no gold was recovered from that shop. One Alagiriswami, an accountant of the Lakshmi Jewellers, Coimbatore was seen in the office of the Nedumpadam Rubbers and on questioning him he admitted that he was in possession of Rs.2 lakhs paid by the accused towards the price of gold ornaments purchased from Lakshmi Jewellers, Coimbatore and that he had been waiting there to collect the balance amount of Rs.64,000. The amount of Rs.2 lakhs was also seized from Alagiriswamy. P.W.1 questioned the accused, his employees and the other witnesses. The accused had licence only to conduct the jewellery shop in the ground floor of the building, and according to the prosecution he had conducted business in the 3rd floor of the building for which he had no licence and therefore committed the offence under S.27(7)(b) and the accused had gold in excess of the account maintained by him and therefore he also committed an offence under S 55 of the Act.

3. On the side of the prosecution 9 witnesses were examined and Exits P1 to P22 were marked. The appellant when questioned under S.313, Cr.P.C. maintained that the excess gold found in the shop was the gold purchased by the brother of the accused who is also a partner in the business, from Coimbatore on 23-9-1981 and the same was brought to the shop in the early morning and there was no occasion to bring the same into account and there was no wilful negligence on the part of the accused to show false accounts, and as regards the recovery of the gold ornaments from the 3rd floor of the building, the accused contended that these gold ornaments were sorted out separately since only customer wanted to purchase these articles and to avoid mixing up of the same with the other articles kept in the shop, the same were taken to the upstairs room and kept there separately and this did not in any way violate the provisions of S 27(7) (b) of the Gold (Control) Act, since no business was conducted in that room.

4. As regards the first charge against the accused that they violated 8.55(3) of the Gold (Control) Act that no licenced dealer or retailer and no certified goldsmith shall, in his capacity as licenced dealer or refiner either own or have in his possession, custody or control any gold which has not been included in the accounts referred to in sub-section (1)