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 he has brought the gold for clandestine disposal at Madras. As there was no satisfactory explanation for the possession of the gold and it is admittedly contraband gold, P.W. 2 seized the said gold bars and arrested the accused at 6.30 p.m. on 13-9-1979. A case has been registered against the accused under Section 41 (Clause 2) and 102 of Cr. P.C. read with Section 110 of Customs Act.


4.On the day in question the revision petitioner got down from the train and was proceeding in Platform No. 1 and at that time P.Ws. 1 and 2 and their party stopped the revision petitioner and enquired him. The revision petitioner was having M.O. 1 suit case with him. It was locked with M.O. 12. The revision petitioner was directed to open the box with the help of a key in the key bunch M.O. 13. The revision petitioner opened the box. Inside the suit case, there were clothes, M.O. 2 small blue colour rexine bag, which had openings on either side and there were three paper packet. In side the packet, M.Os. 4 to 6 were there and in each one of the paper packet there were two gold bars. In all there were six gold bars in the above three paper packets. The said six gold bars are M.Os. 7 to 9. The revision petitioner was having M.O. 10 Rail ticket and M.O. 11 Reservation ticket with him at that time.


5.When the revision petitioner was so searched from the beginning till end P.W. 6 Mani and another Srinivasan who was working as a porter in the Central Railway Station, were present, P.W. 6 Inspector of Police was on duty in the Railway Station at that time.


6.A goldsmith who was brought there, weighed the six gold bars and informed that the weight of the six gold bars was 2.747 grams. The value of the above gold bars on that day was Rs. 3.16 lakhs. For keeping the gold bars the revision petitioner had no permission or licence with him. Therefore, the above gold bars along with the Material Objects 1 to 13 were recovered from the revision petitioner by P.Ws. 1 and 2. Ex. P. 1 is the mahazar prepared for the said seizure. In the said mahazar two independent witnesses as well as the goldsmith signed as witnesses. The revision petitioner was also arrested at the same place.


7.Along with the seized M.Os. the revision petitioner was taken by P.Ws. 1 and 2 to their office at Santhome at Madras. P.W. 2 registered a case against the petitioner at 8 p.m. under Section 41 and Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Section 110 of the Gold Control Act, 1968, as NIB Crime No. 60 of 1979. Copy of the first information report is Ex. P. 2.


8.The revision petitioner was sent for remand. On 15-9-1979 P.W. 2 sent a letter Ex. P. 3 to the Central Excise Department at Madras. On 17-9-1979 Ex. P. 4 was written to the Court of the learned 17th Metropolitan Magistrate which had remanded the revision petitioner to the Excise department. On 17-9-1979 at 7.30 p.m. the revision petitioner was examined by P.W. 4, Superintendent of Police, Excise Department. The revision petitioner who was not acquainted with the Tamil language gave a voluntary statement in Hindi. P.W. 5, S. Vilas, is doing business in silver workshop. He belongs to Maharashtra State. He is well acquainted with Hindi language. During the enquiry, the service of P.W. 5 as a translator was utilised. The statement given by the revision petitioner herein was translated into Tamil by P.W. 5. The said statement was recorded in Tamil in Ex. P. 7 by the Inspector of Police. Thereafter, the said Tamil statement was translated into Hindi and made known to the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner herein had acknowledged the correctness of the statement and put his signature in Ex. P. 7. In the said statement both P.W. 5 as well as another person Govindarajan put their signatures as attesting witnesses.


9.In Ex. P. 7 confessional statement, the accused has stated as follows :


The accused had been employed as a broker in a gold jewellery at Raipur, Madhya Pradesh State. The accused is acquainted with one Ashok Kumar of that town, who is engaged in gold jewellery business. At the request of the said Ashok Kumar the accused had brought the gold bars by train from Raipur to Nagpur and by Tamil Nadu Express from Nagpur to Madras. It was on that day, namely on 13-9-1979 the accused was caught hold of by the officers and the gold jewels with him were seized by them.


10.The complainant filed the case against the revision petitioner on 14-4-1981. When questioned under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the revision petitioner herein stated before the trial Court that it is true that he came in the train at 5.15 p.m. to Madras Central Station on 13-9-1979 and that M.O. 10 is the Railway ticket which he had in his possession. According to the revision petitioner, other material objects including gold bars were seized from him. On the consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held that the prosecution had proved its case against the revision petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt and found him guilty under Section 85 (1) read with Section 8 (1) (i) of the Gold Control Act, 1968. Aggrieved by the above decision of the trial Court, the revision petitioner herein preferred C.A. No. 393 of 1981 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras. On the question whether the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the lower appellate Court came to the same conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and confirmed both the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower appellate Court, the accused has come forward with this revision before this Court.


11.Mr. K.A. Panchapakesan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and as such the conviction of the accused is not correct and in accordance with law. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the sentence imposed by the trial Court on the revision petitioner and in turn confirmed by the lower appellate Court is excessive and severe.


12.The point for consideration in this revision is whether there is any infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. It is useful to extract below the concerned sections in the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.


Section 8 of Gold (Control) Act, 1968 :


Restrictions regarding acquisition, possession and disposal of gold -


(1) Save as otherwise provided in this act, no person shall


(i) own or have in his possession, custody or control, or


(ii) acquire or agree to acquire the ownership, possession, custody or control of, or


(iii) buy, accept or otherwise receive or agree to buy, accept or otherwise receive, and primary gold.


Section 85 (1) of Gold (Control) Act, 1968 reads as follows :



"Punishment for illegal possession etc. of gold :


(1) Whoever, in contravention the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder,


(i) makes, manufactures, prepares or processes any primary gold;


(ii) owns or has in his possession, custody or control any primary gold; or


(iii) buys or otherwise acquires, or accepts or otherwise receives, or agrees to buy or otherwise acquire or to accept or otherwise receive, any primary gold; or


(iv) sells, delivers, transfers or otherwise disposes of, or agrees to sell, deliver, transfer or otherwise dispose of, or exposes or offers for sale, delivery, transfer or disposal, any primary gold; or(v) melts, assays, refines, extracts, alloys or converts any gold or subjects it to any other process; or


(vi) makes, manufactures, prepares, repairs polishes or processes or places any order for making, manufacturing, preparing, repairing, polishing or processing, of any article or ornament; or


(vii) buys or otherwise acquires, or accepts or otherwise receives, or agrees to buy or otherwise acquire or to accept or otherwise receive, or sells, delivers, transfers or otherwise disposes of, or agrees to sell, deliver, transfer or otherwise dispose of, or exposes or offers for sale, delivery, transfer or other disposal, any article or ornament; or


(viii) owns or has in his possession, custody or control any article or ornament; or


(ix) carries on any business or transaction in gold for which a licence or certificate is required to be obtained by or under this Act;


Or


(x) Carries on business as a banker or money-lender;


shall without prejudice to any other action that may be taken under this act, be punishable -


(a) if the offence is under clause (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) or (viii) [the offence under Cl. (viii) being a contravention of sub-section (5) of Section 55 and the value of the gold involved therein exceeds one lakh of rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine;


Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the Court such imprisonment shall not be for a term of less than six months;


(b) in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both.


13.The main and important witnesses in this case against the revision petitioner are P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6. When we examined the evidence, adduced through them, we find that there is absolutely no contradiction or discrepancy brought about in their cross-examination so as to reject their evidence. Above all, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 are Officials of the Government departments. Merely on the ground that they are official witnesses and P.W. 6 had given evidence four or five times, their evidence cannot be rejected. The revision petitioner herein had admitted that on 13-9-1979 he came by Tamil Nadu Express and got down from the train at Madras Central Station. Yet, he would state that the transported gold bars were not belonging to him. It is relevant in this connection to note that his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is only for the purpose of saving himself from legal punishment. In the instant case before us, steps had been taken one after another without any delay. Within 24 hours of the arrest the revision petitioner had been produced before the learned 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. Thereafter, the Officers of the Central Excise department had taken the revision petitioner from judicial custody for enquiry on 17-9-1979 and on that night itself in the presence of P.W. 5 they obtained Ex. P.7 confessional statement of the revision petitioner. The seized material objects were entrusted with the Excise Department on 17-9-1979 itself through P.W. 6. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 are responsible officers and there is absolutely no ground or reason for rejecting their evidence. The explanation offered by P.W. 2 Superintendent of Police, that in order to ascertain whether the seized gold bars were stolen property or not, they were entrusted with the Excise department is a reasonable and acceptable one. The contention raised on behalf of the revision petitioner that the non-examination of Ashok Kumar, alleged person from whom the revision petitioner had taken delivery of the gold bars and brought them to Madras is fatal to the prosecution cannot be upheld. The non-examination of the said witness even during the investigation does not in any way affect the prosecution case. The fact remains that the gold bars were seized directly from the revision petitioner himself in the presence of respectable witnesses. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that any coercion or force was exercised on the revision petitioner either by P.W. 1 or P.W. 2 to give confessional statement at any point of time and as such the confessional statement Ex. P. 7 cannot be held to have been obtained by force from the revision petitioner. Reasonable care had been taken by both P.Ws. 1 and 2 for recording the statement of the revision petitioner in Tamil by translating the Tamil version into Hindi. After recording the same they had taken care to see that Tamil statement is translated into Hindi and the revision petitioner acknowledged the contents of Ex. P. 7 to be correct. Thereafter only the revision petitioner had signed the same. On the very next day of recording of Ex. P. 7, the revision petitioner had been produced before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. At that time, the learned Magistrate himself had endorsed saying that no violence had been exercised on the revision petitioner by the police. It is also relevant in this connection to note that the revision petitioner himself has stated that what all he had stated therein are true and correct. Thus, on a careful and anxious scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that both the Courts below are correct in convicting the accused/revision petitioner under Section 8(1) (i) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.


14.An act indulged by the revision petitioner herein is certainly illegal and anti-social one shattering the economy of the country and as such the said act should be seriously viewed by the Courts. The revision petitioner herein cannot be considered as a carrier or machinery employed by his master for the transport of gold. Smuggling of gold is a crime against the Nation and it destroys the economy of the country and therefore, the revision petitioner herein must be given a maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed under the Act. The age of the accused is 23 years in the instant case. The revision petitioner herein cannot be considered as a cooly or carrier employed by the smuggler for transport of the gold bars, as alleged by the revision petitioner himself. If this reasoning is accepted for awarding a lenient sentence, then the smugglers can continue to get things done through the coolies or hirelings and get away with nominal punishments. Courts of law should not hesitate to impose proper and adequate punishments in economic offences when once they come to the conclusion that the accused have committed offences charged against them. A light punishment imposed on the person found guilty for a very grave crime of this kind is nothing short of traversty of justice which will have no deterrent effect on the community. The sympathy of the Court should not be misplaced on subsequent events. InBalakrishna Chhaganlal Soniv.State of West Bengal 1974 AIR(SC) 12) the Supreme Court observed as follows :" *


Guilt being established, the fifth act of the tragedy is reached. Social and economic offences stand on a graver footing in respect of punishment. The appellant's Advocate pleads in elimination of the imprisonment that gold of considerable value has been confiscated, that his client has gone out of business (his licence having been cancelled) and the possibility of further mischief is absent, seven years of criminal proceedings have been a long ordeal deterrent enough to inhibit future anti-social adventures, and some jail term he has already undergone. Counsel submits that his client will now turn a new leaf if he is not returned to prison. We decline to be moved by this dubious prospect.


15.The new horizons is penal treatment with hopeful hues of correction and rehabilitation are statutorily embodied in India in some special enactments; but crimes professionally committed by deceptively respectable members of the community by inflicting severe trauma on the health and wealth of the nation - and the numbers of this neo-criminal tribe are rapidly escalating-form a deterrent exemption to humane softness in sentencing.


16.The penal strategy must be informed by social circumstances, individual factors and the character of the Crime. India has been facing an economic crisis and gold smuggling has had a disastrous impact on the State's efforts to stabilize the country's economy smugglers, hoarders, adulterators and others of their like have been busy in their under-world because the legal hardware has not been able to halt the invisible economic aggressor inside. The effectiveness of prosecutions in arresting the wave of white-collar crime must disturb the judge's conscience. While we agree that penal treatments should be tailored to the individual, in the extreme category of professional economic offenders, incarceration is peculiarly potent. When all is said and done, the offences for which the appellant has been convicted are typical of respectable racketeers, who, tempted by t

he heavy pay-off, face the perils of the law and hope that they could smuggle on a large scale and even if struck by the Court they could get away with a light blow. 17.Mr. Justice Abhyankar observed inStatev.Drupati Bhanani 1965 AIR(Bom) 6) under Section 5, Imports and Exports Control Act : "A serious view must therefore be taken of such offences which show a distressingly growing tendency. The argument that the accused comes from a respectable or high family rather emphasises the seriousness of the malady. If members belonging to high status in life should show scant regard for the laws of this country which are for public good, for protecting our foreign trade or exchange position of currency difficulties, the consequential punishment for the violation of such laws must be equally deterrent. The offences against export and import restrictions and customs are of the species of 'economic' crimes which must be curbed effectively." * 18.We endorse this approach. It may not be out of place to notice in this context the observations of the Central Law Commission Forty-Seventh Report on "The Trial and punishment of social and Economic Offences" against light sentences on the score that : (i) " the case is one of first conviction; (ii) that the matter has been already dealt with by severe departmental penalty; (iii) that the convicted person is a young man. To the extent to which gold smuggling and other anti-social operators in the field of crime can be given an unhappy holiday in jail, the courts must help the process on conviction, if judicial institutions, are not to be cynically viewed by the community. We confirm the sentence.' 19.The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed by the trial Court on the revision petitioner under Section 85(1) read with Section 8(1) (i) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, cannot be said to be either excessive or severe. Under the circumstances, the confirmation of the conviction as well as the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner herein by the lower appellate Court is correct and in accordance with law. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The criminal revision case is dismissed.