The appellant inter alia took the plea that he is carrying on the business of gold only in the ground floor and the items therein have been accounted for including the items that were found in the third floor.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.1988 of the Kerala High Court in Crl.
C. Mahajan, A. Subba Rao, P. Parmeshwaran and Mrs. Sushma Suri for the Respondent.
Questioning the same, the present appeal by way of special leave has been filed.
On 23.9.81 Superintend ent of Central Excise, examined as P.W. 1, raided the shop of the appellant and companyducted a search.
453 of 1989.
Books of accounts maintained by the appellant were verified and it was found that there was a stock of 1372 pieces of gold ornaments.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The trial companyrt on an appreciation of the evidence, acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had unaccounted jewellery and that he was carrying on business in an unlicensed prem ises.
A companyplaint was preferred against the appellant alleging that he has unac companynted jewellery and that he was carrying on the business in the third floor which is number a licensed premises.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by REDDY, J. The Gold Control Act ws enacted in the year 1968 with the object of companytrol of the production, supply, use and possession of and business in gold ornaments and articles of gold in the interest of economic and financial interests of the companymunity.
25/ A/1479 on the Municipal Road, Trichur Kerala .
The search party found 169 pieces of new gold ornaments in the third floor of the building weighing 667.850 grams kept in a card board box.
They were seized.
The showroom where the actual day to day business is companyducted is in the ground floor.
382 of 1986.
A. No.
Ramaswamy, Ashok K. Sen, G. Viswanatha Iyer and R. Satish for the Appellant.
He also took the plea that he sold these items to a customer and separated them and kept them in the third floor for the purpose of delivering the same to the purchaser and that the third floor also formed part of the licensed premises.
On further investigation companyducted by the officer it was also revealed that the appellants brother, his business associate, had purchased some items of jewellery from another dealer and had also kept the same in the said licensed premises.
