Judgment This revision is against the judgment rendered in C.A.No. 266 of 1976 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras Division, dated 19th November, 1975. 2. The prosecution case is that P.W.1 who is the Inspector of Central Excise, Madras, checked the accounts and inspected the gold items in the shop of the petitioner herein on 26th June, 1973 at about 5-30 p.m., that the petitioner was found in possession of primary gold weighing 2.200 grams. (M.O.1 series). 3 gold sovereign coins weighing 20 grams. (M.O.2 series) and brand new gold ornaments such as 52 gold nose screws, 10 studs, thali and thali gundus made of gold 8 in number (M.O. 3 series) all weighing 308.700 grams and that all the above said items are in excess of the account shown by him. They were seized under the mahazar (Ex.P-1) duly attested by independent witnesses. The Central Excise authorities took action under the Gold (Control) Act and passed an order (Exhibits P-5) confiscating the gold items and ornaments stated above and imposed a penalty of Rs. 250. After taking action under Gold (Control) Act, the authorities also laid a complaint for violation of certain sections of the Gold (Control) Act by the petitioner herein after granting an authorisation as per Exhibit P-6. The alleged offences committed by the petitioner are under sections 6 (2), 8 (1) and 27 (1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, punishable under section 85 (ii), (viii) and (ix) of the Gold (Control) Act. 3. When questioned by the Trial Court, the petitioner stated that the gold ornaments seized by P.W.1 were his. family properties and that some of them were pledged with him by one Raghavachari and Sadasiva Achari and that he showed the vouchers to the officers. The petitioner also examined D. Ws. 1 and 2 in defence. 4. The trial Court held that D.W. 1 had no explanation for non-production of the pawn tickets in respect of the jewels said to have been pledged by him. It accepted the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution and held that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of section 8 (1),27 (1) and 6 (2) of the Act punishable under section 85 (ii), (viii) and (ix) of the Gold (Control) Act. Accordingly, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner under the aforesaid sections observing that he did not impose separate sentence under each head. Accordingly, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner under the aforesaid sections observing that he did not impose separate sentence under each head. Finally, the trial Court sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras Division who heard the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, confirmed the conviction and the sentence of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the above criminal revision petition. 5. Mr. S. Prathapchand Chopda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through the judgments of the Courts below and also the evidence on record. He argued that a declaration under section 16 (1) of the Gold (Control) Act ought to have been taken before the petitioner was prosecuted under section 6 (2) of the Gold (Control) Act. For this proposition, learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the decision reported in Badri Prasad v. Collector, Central Excise. The Supreme Court dealing, with section 16 (1) of the Gold (Control) Act in relation to sections 6(1) and 6 (2) of the said Act, has observed: “On the first point learned Counsel drew our attention to section 6 (1) of the Act which has been already referred to and contended that inasmuch as section 16 (1) was a general provision while section 6 (1) was specially directed towards pawn brokers, the former provision i.e., section 16 (1) was inapplicable to pawn brokers. Our attention was also drawn to section 28 of the Act under which a licensed dealer could unless authorised by the Administrator so to do carry on business as a money lender or banker on the security of any article or ornament or both in the same premises in which he carried on business as a dealer. In our view section 16 is not excluded in the case of money lenders or pawn brokers. Any person who comes under the purview of section 16 (1) has to make a declaration unless there is any provision to the contrary in that Chapter. The only provision to the contrary is contained in sub- section (5) which permits of exemptions in respect of persons holding gold articles or ornaments upto a specified limit. Any person who comes under the purview of section 16 (1) has to make a declaration unless there is any provision to the contrary in that Chapter. The only provision to the contrary is contained in sub- section (5) which permits of exemptions in respect of persons holding gold articles or ornaments upto a specified limit. The provision in section 6 (1) empowering the Administrator to call upon any pawn broker to furnish a return does not do away with his obligation to file a declaration under section 16 (1). section 6 (1) empowers the Administrator to take action in special cases where he thinks it necessary to call upon a money lender to make a return and under section 6 (2) he is empowered to authorise any Gold Control Officer to examine the accounts of such pawn broker This cannot obviate the requirements of section 16 (1). Counsel argued that there would be duplication of declaration in respect of pawn brokers if both are complied with. No such duplication or difficulty will arise. Every pawn broker will have to file his declaration under section 16(1) and he would be obliged to make a return only when he is called upon to do so in terms of section 6. It was argued further that although under section 16 (2) the Legislature had expressly provided for returns being submitted with regard to various kinds of persons, pawn brokers were not included therein and so long as no order prescribing for declaration being filed by them under clause (m) war made they were under no obligation to file declarations. There is no substance in the contention because sub section (2) is directed only towards removal of doubts which might be felt in the cases of persons specified in clauses (a) to (l). In the case of pawnbrokers no such difficulty or doubt arises. There is no substance in the contention because sub section (2) is directed only towards removal of doubts which might be felt in the cases of persons specified in clauses (a) to (l). In the case of pawnbrokers no such difficulty or doubt arises. If a number of pawn brokers carry on business in partnership the declaration can be made by any partner of the firm in terms of clause (f) and if a company, “carries on business of pawn broking any person in charge of the management of the affairs of the company can make the declaration.” From the above said observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the case cited was in respect of exemptions claimed by pawn brokers for giving a declaration under section 16 (1) of the Act. In dealing with such a case, the Supreme Court has made it specific that every one including pawn brokers is expected to make a declaration under section 16 (1) of the Act. The observation of the Supreme Court further makes it clear that the powers conferred upon the Administrator concerned under sections 6 (1) and 6 (2) of the Gold Control Act is independent to that of section 16 (1) and as such there is no necessity to infer that a declaration under section 16 (1) must precede before the Administrator takes action under sections 6 (1) and 6 (2). On a reading of the Act as a whole and also specifically sections 6 (1) and 6 (2) of the Gold Control Act, I am of the view that sections 6(1) and 6 (2) of the Act are independent and the Administrator has ample power to invoke the said section for the purpose of calling for returns as to the receipt or sale of hypothecated gold. Hence the argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as stated above has no force. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also argued that before taking action under section 6 (2), the Administrator ought to have called for returns as provided under section 6 (1). The word “such person” according to the learned Counsel occurring in section 6 (2) refers to persons mentioned in section 6 (1) of the Act and as such the action taken under section 6 (2) before adverting to section 6 (1) is not valid. The word “such person” according to the learned Counsel occurring in section 6 (2) refers to persons mentioned in section 6 (1) of the Act and as such the action taken under section 6 (2) before adverting to section 6 (1) is not valid. A reading of sections 6 (1) and 6 (2) of the Act, in my view, is independent and “such person” occurring in section 6 (2) itself and it will not relate to the person mentioned in section 6 (1). section 6 (2) is a compact section which enables the Administrator to authorise any Gold Control Officer to examine the accounts relating to the receipt, delivery or sale of any gold, of any person who advances any money on the hypothecation, pledge, mortgage or charge of any article or ornament, and if any gold is found in the possession of such person which is not entered in such accounts or which is in excess of the quantity shown in such accounts, and which is not otherwise accounted for to the satisfaction of such officer, such gold shall be deemed to be in the possession of such person in contravention of the provisions of this Act. It has been found by the two Courts below that the petitioner had in excess than what he has stated in his accounts, 308.700 grams of gold ornaments which are M.O. 3 series and 20 grams of two full sovereign and one half sovereign which is M.O. 2 series in this case and that is clear violation of section 6 (2) of the Gold Control Act. Hence both the Courts below have correctly found that the petitioner has violated section 6 (2) of the Act and is liable to be punished under section 85 (viii) of the said Act. 7. Further, P.W. 1 has also found 2,200 grams of primary gold in the possession of the petitioner. As per section 8 (1) (i) of the Gold Control Act, it is stated “Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall own or have in his possession, custody or control any primary gold.” Hence both the Courts below as a matter of fact found that the petitioner had in his custody 2,200 grams of primary gold and thus he has violated section 8 (1) ( i) of the Act. I am in complete agreement with the said finding arrived at by both the Courts below. 8. The Courts below have also found that the petitioner has violated section 27 (1) of the Gold Control Act. section 27 (1) states: “Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall commence or carry on business” “as a dealer unless he holds a valid licence issued in this behalf by the Administrator.” It has been stated by the prosecution that the petitioner is not having a valid licence issued by the Administrator to deal in these gold articles. Mr. S. Prathapchand Chopda, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the definition of “dealer” contained in the Gold Control Act. Section 2 (h) of the Act states: ‘Idealer’ means any person who carries on directly or otherwise, the business or making, manufacturing, preparing repairing, polishing, buying, selling, supplying, distributing, melting, processing or converting gold whether for cash or for deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable, consideration and includes……” According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a mere pawn broker and he has a licence for running the pawnbroker's shop. He will not come under the definition of ”dealer“ contained in section 2 (h) of the Act and as such, there is no necessity for him to obtain a licence from the Administrator as contemplated in section 27 (1) of the Act. For this proposition, learned Counsel for the petitioner also cited a decision rendered by a single Judge of our High Court in W.P.No. 4464 of 1974 wherein this Court had an occasion to deal with the fact as to whether a pawn broker will come under the definition of ”dealer“ contained in section 2 (h) of the Act. After extracting the definition of ‘dealer’ contained in section 2 (h) of the Act, Ramanujam, J., has observed: “In this case, admittedly, there is no material to show that the petitioner has been dealing in gold in any of the modes referred to in the definition of “dealer” apart from carrying on the pawn brokers business. After extracting the definition of ‘dealer’ contained in section 2 (h) of the Act, Ramanujam, J., has observed: “In this case, admittedly, there is no material to show that the petitioner has been dealing in gold in any of the modes referred to in the definition of “dealer” apart from carrying on the pawn brokers business. As already stated, the possession of unaccounted gold jewels by a pawnbroker may amount to an offence under the Act in view of section 6 (2) but that does not automatically follow that such a pawnbroker who was in possession of gold jewels which he could not account, is a dealer in gold or gold jewels. In this case straight way an inference has been drawn based on mere possession of unaccounted jewels by a pawnbroker. Such an inference is not possible on the facts and circumstances of this case as there is no other material indicating that the petitioner has been dealing in gold or gold ornaments. section 27 (1) of the Act says that no person shall commence, or carry on, business as a dealer unless he holds a valid licence issued in that behalf by the Administrator. Unless the petitioner has acted as a dealer, it is not required to take out any licence as required under section 27 of the Act. Therefore, it is not possible to say in this case that the infringement of section 27 of the Act has been made out” Mr.E.S Govindan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government Prosecutor submitted that the possession of M.O. 3 series which consisted of 52 gold nose-screws; 10 studs, thali and thali gundus made of gold 8 in number will definitely indicate that the petitioner was dealing in their gold ornaments. There is absolutely no evidence that he was dealing in gold ornaments except stating that an inference should be drawn from the available materials on record. It is for the prosecution to prove that the petitioner was dealing in these ornaments. There is absolutely no evidence on record in this case except stating that these ornaments were found in the shop of the petitioner. I do not think, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, such an inference can be drawn in order to punish the petitioner under section 27 (1) of the Gold Control Act. There is absolutely no evidence on record in this case except stating that these ornaments were found in the shop of the petitioner. I do not think, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, such an inference can be drawn in order to punish the petitioner under section 27 (1) of the Gold Control Act. Taking into consideration the judgment of our High Court rendered by Ramanujam, J., and also from the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think the prosecution has made out an offence under section 27 (1) of the Act against the petitioner herein. 9. In these circumstances, I confirm the conviction of the petitioner under sections 6 (2) and 8 (1) of the Gold Control Act and set aside the conviction of the petitioner under section 27 (1) of the Gold Control Act. 10. The petitioner was sentenced for all these offences to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for three months. Inasmuch as the petitioner is absolved from the liability under section 27 (1) of the Gold Control Act, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be served if the imprisonment till the rising of the Court is confirmed and the sentence of fine is reduced to Rs. 700. It is stated that the fine amount of Rs. 1,000 has, been already paid by the petitioner herein. The excess amount of Rs. 300 will be refunded to the petitioner. With this modification in sentence, this revision is partly allowed, and partly dismissed.