JUDGMENT - S.W. PURANIK, J.:---All these three appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the same order passed in Criminal Case No. 19438 of 1990 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune on 12-8-1981. 2. Initially, the firm M/s. Solanki Jewellers of Pune along with its two partners were prosecuted for the offences under section 55 read with sections 85 and 87 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune in Criminal Case No. 19438 of 1990 on the allegation that on the material date 28th April, 1973 when the Inspector, Gold Control and Central Excise visited the firm premises it was noticed that the accused were in possession of gold and gold ornaments in excess of the quantity referred to in their books of account and consequently the firm and its partners had failed to make proper entries during the period 24.4.1973 to 28.4.1973 in respect of the gold ornaments purchased or transferred by them in their business transactions. The charge was accordingly fremed in the complaint case and on behalf of the prosecution seven witnesses were tendered in witness box P.W. 1 is Maruti Yadav, Inspector, Gold Control and Central Excise who filed the complaint case under authorisation Ex. 58 issued by the Gold Control Officer. He has proved the panchanama Ex. 33 on the date of his raid on the premises of the respondents. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of accused No. 2 at Ex. 34 and accused No. 3 at Ex. 35. The accused persons produced four vouchers before the Investigating Officer within a few days after the incident relating to the excess quantity of gold ornaments found in their possession. Pursuant thereto additional statements of accused Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded at Ex. 42 and 43 respectively. The proceedings before the customs and excise authorities ended in an adjudication order Ex. 45. Thus in short, the case in the complaint has been fully reiterated by the principal witness P.W. 1. 3. P.W. 2 is Manohar Dabir, the Supreintendent of Customs and Excise who supports the prosecution, while P.W. 3 Walchand Jain, P.W. 4 Bhagvant Kanehre, P.W. 5 Gajanan Gujar, P.W. 6 Shripad Khadilkar and P.W. 7 Champalal Bagala are formal witnesses such as witnesses to the panchanama etc. in respect of the investigation. 4. 3. P.W. 2 is Manohar Dabir, the Supreintendent of Customs and Excise who supports the prosecution, while P.W. 3 Walchand Jain, P.W. 4 Bhagvant Kanehre, P.W. 5 Gajanan Gujar, P.W. 6 Shripad Khadilkar and P.W. 7 Champalal Bagala are formal witnesses such as witnesses to the panchanama etc. in respect of the investigation. 4. Suffice it to say that the accused have not disputed these facts. On the contrary it is the say of the accused that the excess quantity of gold ornaments found in possession in the brief case at the shop had just been received on the same day through their servant who had brought it from Bombay, and therefore, the entries were not effected in the account books at the time the officers had raided their premises. Alternatively, it was stated that accused No. 2 was maintaining the acount books. He is a left-handed and his left hand itself was fractured, and therefore, he was unable to make necessary entries in the register. The accused through their Advocate tendered four vouchers one of which is dated 27-4-1973, while the other three vouchers are dated 28-4-73 in support of possession of the excess quantity of gold ornaments. 5. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons under section 85(1)(vii) and (viii) of the Gold Control Act on the reasoning that the exact contravention of the Act and the rules has not been shown and proved by the prosecution. 6. Criminal Appeal No. 946 of 1981 is against this order of acquittal. 7. Criminal Appeal No. 929 of 1981 is filed for enhancement of the sentence imposed under section 87 against accused persons. The learned trial Judge had sentenced the accused with one day's simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- only. Hence Criminal Appeal No. 929 of 1981 for enhancement. 8. The third appeal is Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1992. This appeal has been preferred by the convicted accused against the order of conviction under section 87 of the Gold Control Act. 9. Mr. S.C. Modak with Mrs. Raja appears for the respondents-accused, while Mrs. Randive, Public Prosecutor appears for the State in all these three appeals. With the assistance of the learned Counsel of both the parties I have gone through the records and papers of this case as well as the impugned judgment. 10. 9. Mr. S.C. Modak with Mrs. Raja appears for the respondents-accused, while Mrs. Randive, Public Prosecutor appears for the State in all these three appeals. With the assistance of the learned Counsel of both the parties I have gone through the records and papers of this case as well as the impugned judgment. 10. It is not disputed that the facts as narrated in the complaint and as corroborated by P.W.1 Maruti Yadav are not challenged in these proceedings. The fact is well established that on 28-4-1973 P.W. 1 raided the premises of respondent No. 1 Solanki Jewellers and in fact found on assessment of the entire quantity of gold that excess quantity of gold ornaments were in possession of the respondents without there being corresponding entries in their account books and registers as required to be maintained under the Gold Control Act. 11. It is well settled that in an appeal against order of acquittal preferred by the State or in an appeal for enhancement of the sentence preferred by the State, the accused-respondents are entitled to argue for acquittal. 12. In view of the above undisputed position regarding the facts of the case the question that falls for determination is whether the prosecution has established that the accused have committed offences under sections 55(1), (2) and (3) read with section 85(1)(vii) and (viii) and section 87 of the Gold Control Act? 13. Mrs. Randive for the prosecution submitted that the complaint was filed with due authorisation from the Gold Control Officer as required under section 97(1) of the Gold Control Act and in view of the undisputed factual position of the possession of excess quantity of gold ornaments on the material day without corresponding entry in the account books should necessarily result in conviction of the accused and adequate punishment should have been imposed by the learned Magistrate instead of letting them off on fine under section 87 of the Gold Control Act. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Modak, learned Counsel for the accused urged that the authorisation under section 97(1) has not been duly proved nor does it show proper application of mind by person authorising. According to him, therefore, if the authorisation fails the whole prosecution based on the said authorisation must fail. 15. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Modak, learned Counsel for the accused urged that the authorisation under section 97(1) has not been duly proved nor does it show proper application of mind by person authorising. According to him, therefore, if the authorisation fails the whole prosecution based on the said authorisation must fail. 15. Section 97(1) reads as under:--- "Save as otherwise proivided in sub-section (2), no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint in writing made by a Gold Control Officer, not below the rank of a Collector of Central Excise or of Customs, having jurisdiction over the area in which the offence is committed or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf." Sub-section (2) of the said section is not relevant for the purpose of this case. 16. A plain reading of this section 97(1) shows that the Legislature in its wisdom had thought it necessary that vexatious and mischevous complaints under the Gold Control Act should not be taken cognizance of by any Court of law. It, therefore, thought it necessary that a Court shall take cognizance only in the event a responsible Senior Officer not below the rank of a Collector of Central Excise or of Customs in his capacity as a Gold Control Officer having the jurisdiction over the area in which the offence is committed chooses to prefer a complaint in writing for the said purpose. It is, therefor,e implied that cognizance of offences under this Act can be taken by a Court only if a superior Officer has applied his mind to the facts and documents revealed during investigation and has drafted a complaint in writing and placed it before a judicial authority. Section 97(1) in its last line includes any person authorised by such responsible superior Officer in writing. 17. The impact of this provision, therefore, is equivalent to the grant of sanction for prosecution which is required under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 97(1) in its last line includes any person authorised by such responsible superior Officer in writing. 17. The impact of this provision, therefore, is equivalent to the grant of sanction for prosecution which is required under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complaint to be tendered in writing by the Gold Control Officer of a rank not below the rank of a Collector of Central Excise or of Customs would clearly show that a responsible Officer of the department must closely scrutinise the facts of a given case and on being satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to proceed against accused for offences relating to the Gold Control Act, then alone he should prefer a complaint in writing or else in the event he is unable to present the complaint in writing, he should authorise an Officer below him in writing in that behalf. 18. In short, the authorisation to an inferior Officer must reflect the application of mind by the authorising Officer to the facts of the given case and the conclusion which he has reached regarding the nature of the offence committed by the accused for which the complaint is to be tendered. it is thereafter, that a judicial Court will take cognizance of the offence and proceed with the matter. 19. As already stated above, the reqirement under section 97 is not an idle formality but a sacrosanct duty implied in section 97 itself which would indicate that the superior Officer must apply his mind to the facts of the case before executing the authorisation and that should be evident from the authorisation order itself. 20. In the instant case the authorisation that has been proved at Ex. 58 shows that the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Pune on 4-8-1977 was satisfied that from the facts and material placed before him, grounds existed for prosecuting the three accused for offences connected with the seizure of gold ornaments weighing 1500.450 gms valued at about Rs. 27,850/- at Pune on 28-4-1973 and that, therefore, in view of the provisions and the authority under the Act he authorised Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Pune-I Division, Pune to file complaint for the above mentioned offences under section Gold Control Act, 1968 as disclosed by facts of this case before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 21. 27,850/- at Pune on 28-4-1973 and that, therefore, in view of the provisions and the authority under the Act he authorised Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Pune-I Division, Pune to file complaint for the above mentioned offences under section Gold Control Act, 1968 as disclosed by facts of this case before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 21. This authorisation merely shows that reasonable grounds existed for prosecuting the accused for offences connected with the seizure of gold ornaments on 28-4-1973. It, however, does not declare the nature of offences connnected with the seizure of gold. Section 85 has as many as 10 types of offences connected with the seizure of gold. Secondly in the substantive part of authorisation in paragraph 2 the authorisation only says that the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Pune-I Division, Pune is authorised to file complaint for the above-mentioned offences under section Gold Control Act without referring to any section of the Gold Control Act. Thus the responsible officer in the position of Collector, Central Excise has delegated his power to a junior Officer even to decide the nature and extent of the offences committed by these accused persons in respect of the seizure of gold generally. This surely means that the competent officer who was entitled to authorise has not applied his mind to the facts of this particular case. 22. In view of the discussion already made above that section 97(1) necessarily implies the application of mind by the competent Officer and that the letter of authorisation must reflect the said application of mind by the competent Officer, then in the instant case it is evident that there is total non application of mind by him. In the view I have taken, therefore, if the authorisation itself is bad, the cognizance based on such authorisation is illegal and the whole trial thereupon stands vitiated. The accused are, therefore, entitled to acquittal on this ground alone. 23. Secondly, this appeal against acquittal is in respect of the incident of 1973. It is 20 years from the date of the incident. The punishment and the nature of the offence are both trifling at this point of time stretched far away from the date of the incident. Thirdly, the Gold Control Act itself has been abolished in the year 1990 without any savings clause and is thus entirely obliterated from the table of statutes. The punishment and the nature of the offence are both trifling at this point of time stretched far away from the date of the incident. Thirdly, the Gold Control Act itself has been abolished in the year 1990 without any savings clause and is thus entirely obliterated from the table of statutes. It would not be desirable to take up this matter only on technical grounds and proceed with the hearing. 24. In the result, therefore, the appeal against acquittal fails and is dismissed. Similarly, the appeal for enhancement of sentence being Criminal Appeal No. 929 of 1981 fails and is dismissed and lastly Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1992 impugning the order of conviction succeeds and is allowed. In the result, therefore, the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1992 are acquitted of the charges they were convicted and are ordered to be released. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Fine, if paid, be refunded. Appeal dismissed.