GOLD CONTROL ACT, 1968

 

S.2(r)  Primary gold - Proof - Opinion of experienced Chemical Examiner of Customs Department is relevant under S.45 of the Evidence Act and it is to be given due weight - Certificate of Expert need not contain particulars of tests conducted by him. (Evidence ct (1872), S.45).  [M.G. Venugopalan v. Edayil Veettil Govindan 1976 Cri.LJ 165.]

S.27 & R.2 of Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 Issue of licene -  Scope of - There is a duty on the licensing authority to lay down a proper policy to guide itself in the matter of grant or rejection of licences.  [Padmanabhan v. Asst. Collector 1974 KLT(SN) 17.]

S.27(6)  Application for licence - Need fractual experience as a dealer in ornaments - Lapse of application on the expiry of the year - R.2 of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules.-  A licence cannot be refused on the ground that the applicant was never a dealer.  When a licence is granted to one who submitted n application subsequently, the same cannot be denied to one who submitted an application earlier on the ground of want of demand for ornaments.  The decision of the question whether the applicant was entitled for a licence cannot in any way be influenced by the fact that the year for which the licence was applied for was over.  This is all the more so since there is provision for renewal of the licence from year to year and a renewal cannot be arbitrarily denied. [Lakshmana Achari v. Assistant Collector 1975(2) ILR 590.]

S.27(6) & R.2 of Gold Control (licensing of Dealers) Rules - Granting or refusing application for licence - Matters to be considered.-  The Administrator must objectively approach the question whether, on the basis of the turnover estimated for the year in which the application is made the number of dealers existing in the city then would be sufficient.  He must be able to assess what ould be the number of dealers in a city or town on the basis of a specific estimated turnover. [Sadackathulla v. Collector of Customs 1976(1) ILR 332.]

S.27(7)(b) Dealer stocking gold in any premises other than the licenced premises is violative of S.27(7)(b).  [Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. George 1988 (1) KLT 179.]

Ss.74 & 79 Whether liability incurred by Department under S.79, second proviso, to return the gold seized renders it liable for confiscation or not depends upon the question as to whether the conditions specified for confiscation have been satisfied.  Levy of penalty can be made whether or not such gold has been confiscated or is available for confiscation.  [Govinda Rao v. Addl. Secy. 1987(1) KLT 253.]

S.74 & Customs Act (52 of 1962) S.112 (d) Proceedings under - Enquiry culminating in imposition of penalty should be fair and unbiased - Enquiry confined only against one set of persons ignoring the cases against others - Proceedings held invalid.  [The Collector of C.E. & Customs v. Rajagopal Prabhu 1986 KLN 392.]

Ss.77, 71, 74 & 85 Proceedings under the Act for imposition of penalty cannot be equated with prosecution - By imposition of penalty no person is punished for the offence - there is no bar in initiating prosecution proceedings for the offence inspite of the pendency or conclusion of proceedings under Ss.71 & 74 - Inclusion of a judicial member in the Appellate Tribunal - Effect of.-  The mere addition of a judicial member in the Appellate Tribunal will not make it a court much less criminal court.  S.77 of the Act which stood valid before the addition of a judicial member  to the Appellate Tribunal will continue to be valid thereafter also.  There is no bar initiating prosecution proceedings  for the offence inspite of the pendency or conclusion of proceedings under Ss.71 & 74. [Palu v. Asst. Collector, Central Excise 1989(2) KLT 625.]

S.79  Notice not given within six months from date of seizure - Person from whom gold is seized is entitled to its restoration. [Govinda Rao v. Addl. Secy. 1987(1) KLT 253.]

 Second Proviso "Where no such notice is given" - Meaning of - Contemplates actual service of notice. [Govinda Rao v. Addl. Secy. 1987(1) KLT 253.]

S.85(ii) Gold seized from accused confiscated and penalty of Rs.4,000/- under S.74 imposed - Accused stating that he was carrying gold at the instance of A for a remuneration of Rs.100/- only - Held that minimum sentence prescribed by S.85 need not be imposed - Sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 months ad fine of Rs.500/-. [M.G. Venugopalan v. Edayil Veettil Govindan 1976 CrLJ 165.]

S.85 (iii) Accused stating that he was carrying gold at the instance of another to deliver to him - No evidence to show that accused acquired right in gold - Offence under S.85 (iii) not made out.  [M.G. Venugopalan v. Edayil Veettil Govindan 1976 CrLJ 165.]

 

GOLD CONTROL RULES, 1963.

 Offences under Probation of Offenders' Act applicable. [Abdulla v. A.V. Menon 1969 KLT 212.]

Seizure of gold from one not licenced - Legality.  [Arunachalam Pillai v. Collector of Customs .1965 KLT 995.]

R.26C (1) (ii) Ornaments kept in the ante-room of shop - They were kept for sale - So it can be held that they were offered for sale.  [Collector of Customs v. Kesava Reddiar 1972 KLT 349.]

R.126F Gold ornaments not accounted - Burden is on dealer to prove that he came by the gold only within period during which the return has to be made. [Collector of Customs v. Desava Reddiar. 1972 KLT 349.]

R.126G (1) Dealer is bound to account gold received in any manner includi0g clandestine transaction. [Collector of Customs v. Desava Reddiar 1972 KLT 349.]

R.126 H (1) Ornaments will come within the definition of gold - So charge is sustainable for possessing ornaments. [Collector of Customs v. Kesava Rddiar 1972 KLT 349.]

GOLD CONTROL LICENSING DEALERS RULES 1969.

R.2(f) Matters to be considered in issuing licence - Whether principles of natural justice applicable.-  The relevant criteria to be applied is, in the case of applications from dealers in a village, whether there was need to increase the number of licensed dealers in the district within which the village is situated.  In this case the licensing authority and the appellate authority considered the question whether the local area concerned required an additional dealer.  But the revisional authority considered the matter in the correct aspect as laid down by the rule.  So there was scope for interference under Art.226.  [Assistant Collector v. Kuriakose 1977(2) ILR 594.]

GOLD CONTROL ORDER, 1962.

Appeal -  The Collector must consider the question independently and record its reason. [1976 KLT(SN) 79.]