LexC.D. GEORGE versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
C.D. GEORGE
v.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
EXCISE, TRICHUR
MARCH 2, 1990
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA
RED)')Y, JJ.]
A
B
Gold (Control) Act, 1968: Sections 27(7)(b), 55(3) and 85(l)(a)-
Licensed Dealer-Licensed premises consisting of four-storeyed
Building-Showroom on the ground floor-Gold ornaments kept on
third floor-Whether amounts to carrying on business in unlicensed
C
premises.
Practice and Procedure: Trial Court's finding-Possibility of two
....-{
views of the evidence on record-Appellate Court should nol disturb
even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion.
D
The appellant, a licensed dealer, was charged under Section 55(3)
of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 for failure to maintain the neces.sary
accounts and under section 27(7)(b) for carrying on business in the
unlicensed premises on the ground that while the show room of the
--;'
licensed premises was on the ground floor and appellant bad kepi the
E
gold ornaments in the third floor of the building.
-
The Trial Court acquitted the appellant and the Appellate Court
confirmed the rmding under section 55(3) but convicted him under
section 27(7)(b) holding that the third floor does not form part of the
licensed premises.
F
r
.
In this 'IPpeai it was contended on behalf of the appellant that (i)
the High Court misconstrued the provisions of section 27(7)(b); (-U) two
views being possible of the evidence on the record the interference with
the order of acquittal by the Appellate Court was uncalled for.
---1 ..
Setting aside the conviction and allowing the appeal, Ibis Court,
HELD: I. In the instant case the entire building bears only one
municipal number and the licence was given for conducting the business
in tlfat building. There is no other evidence in support of the prosecu-
tion case that the third floor of the building does not form part of the
licensed premises. [796C; 797C)
793
G
H
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] 1 S.C.R.
A
2. If the finding reached by the trial judge cannot be said to be
unreasonable, the Appellate Court should not disturb it even if it were
possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the material on
the record. The Appellate Court therefore should be slow in disturbing
the finding of fact of the Trial Court, and if two views are reasonably
possible of the evidence on the record, it is not expected to interfere
B simply because it feels that it would have taken a different view if the
case had been tried by it. [797E-F]
Bhagwati and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1976] 3 SCC 235,
followed.
3. The view taken by the trial court is quite reasonable and there
;"
C
were no gronnds for the High Court to interfere with the findings of the
D
E
trial court acquitting the accused. [ 797G]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal ~
No. 453 of 1989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.1988 of the Kerala High
Court in Crl. A. No. 382 of 1986.
G. Ramaswamy, Ashok K. Sen, G. Viswanatha Iyer and 'r--
R. Satish for the Appellant.
V.C. Mahajan, A. Sobba Rao, P. Parmeshwaran and Mrs.
Sushma Suri for the Respondent.
-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'>
F
REDDY, J. The Gold (Control) Act ws enacted in the year 1968 . -y · -
with the object of control of the production, supply, use and posses·
sion of and business in gold ornaments and articles of gold in the
interest of economic and financial interests of the community. Section
27 of the Act lays down that no person shall commence, or carry on,
business as a dealer unless he holds a valid licence issued under the
G
provisions of the Act and the said licence should be in the prescribed
form. Section 27(7)(b) lays down that a licensed dealer shall not carry
on the business as such dealer in any premises other than the premises
~
specified in his licence. Section 4(h) defines 'dealer' as one who carries
on the business of making, preparing, polishing, buying, selling,
supplying, processing or converting gold, whether for cash or for
H deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other consi·
deration.
C.D. GEORGE v. ASST. COMMR. CENTRAL EXCISE [REDDY, J.I
795
The appellant before us was one such licensed dealer having a
A
\
shop in a building, which is four-storeyed, bearing Municipal No. 25/
r
A/1479 on the Municipal Road, Trichur (Kerala). The showroom
where the actual day-to-day business is conducted is in the ground
floor. On 23.9.81 SupExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.