Judgment :- The above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3-3-1989 rendered in C.C. No. 51 of 1988 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in acquitting both the accused, who are the respondents herein from the charges framed under the Gold Control Act, 1968. The charge as framed against the respondents herein by the Court below is that on 6-6-1984 at about 4-00 p.m. near Anna Statue bus stop, when the Central Excise Officers of Coimbatore were on patrol, they intercepted the first respondent herein, who alighted from the bus and on inspection and interrogation he was not only found to be in possession of gold bars weighing 2119.300 grams worth Rs. 4,25,979.30 but also came to be known that the said contraband had been entrusted with him by the second respondent without any valid permit or document and hence both the respondents were charged for offences punishable under Ss. 8(1), 31, 36, 38, 55 read with 85(1)(a) of the Gold Control Act, 1968. 2. In proof of the above charge, the prosecution had examined 4 witnesses for oral evidence as P.Ws. 1 to 4; had marked 13 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-13 and had further 17 material objects marked as M.Os. 1 to 17. On the part of the defence 12 documents had been marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-12, and no witness got examined nor any material objects marked. 3. In consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge as framed, the oral and documentary evidence placed, the material objects marked and in further consideration of the position of law, the lower Court has arrived at the conclusion to acquit both the respondents/accused thus holding them not guilty of the offences charged in the test held regarding the point for consideration whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 4. 4. Aggrieved against the acquittal judgment, the prosecution has filed the above criminal appeal on grounds that : (i) that the Court below has failed to note that the first accused was found in possession of the primary gold carrying the same on behalf of his master, the second accused, to be handed over to one Raghuraman of Coimbatore without any voucher or receipt or valid permit at the time of seizure; (it) that the Court below failed to note that the seized articles were molten pieces of gold made of old gold ornaments is not only false but totally unreliable in view of the overwritings found in GS-11 Account books and vouchers; (iii) that the Court below should not have trusted the version of the defence that the seized gold had been manufactured by goldsmiths and the details of the box given by the second accused are not reliable; (iv) that the Court below has failed to note that on the part of the accused they were not able to account for the seizure; that the lower Court ought to have held that no credence could be attached to Exhibits D-1 to D-12, which are fabricated ones for the purpose of the defence; (v) that the Court below has erred in concluding that the statement of the first accused cannot be made use of against the second accused; and (vi) that the Court below should have held the accused guilty under the charge framed. 5. Prior to considering the facts and circumstances encircling the case which ended in acquittal in the trial Court challenging which the above appeal has been preferred, the proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court regarding the appeal against the judgment of acquittal reported in S. Madhavan Nair v. State of Kerala, 1975 Mad LJ (Cri) Page 239 at 243 : (1974 Cri LJ 1279 at p. 1283), has to be considered. It has been held in the above case that. "In an appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an order of acquittal the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. "In an appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an order of acquittal the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found expressly stated in the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon facts the High Court should given proper weight and consideration to such matters as; (1) the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakned by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any real and reasonable doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. The High Court should also take into account the reasons given by the Court below in support of its order of acquittal and must express its reasons in the judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal is not justified. Further if two conclusions can be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. It would follow as a corollary from that, that if the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused is not unreasonable, the occasion for the reversal of that view would not arise." 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Public Prosecutor (Central Government) would argue that the first respondent as the carrier of the second respondent was found to be in possession of 2 Kgs 119 grams 300 mgms of primary gold unaccounted and without a valid permit. When he got intercepted by the Excise Officials on 6-6-1984, six gold bars, which were rectangular in shape got concealed in the knee-caps, 3 bars in each knee-cap and on interrogation the first accused informed that the contraband was belonging to his employer, the second respondent and he was entrusted with the said gold bars in order to be delivered to one Raghuraman of Coimbatore. This statement of the first respondent had been recorded in the form of a confession statement in Exhibit P-2. 7. The Learned Counsel for the prosecution would further contend that PW-1 Central Excise Superintendent was present at the time the first accused got nabbed and intercepted and at the time that his confession statement was recorded in Exhibit P-2; that Inspector of Central Excise and in fact it was PW-1 who prepared the mahazar and since the first respondent told that he did not know to write in Tamil it was written by PW-1. 8. The further contention of the prosecution is that in pursuance of Exhibit P-2 statement of the first respondent, PW-3 interrogated and recorded the statement of the second respondent in Exhibit P-5 and the statement of the said Raghuraman had been recorded in Exhibit P-3 and the additional statement of the first respondent is Exhibit P-4. Exhibit P-6 is the statement of one Mani, a resident of Coimbatore, who converted the ornaments into primary gold and Exhibit P-7 is further statement of the second respondent, Ex. P-8 is the statement of Raju Achari, said to have melted the ornaments; Ex. P-9 is the statement of another goldsmith; Exhibit P-10 is the show-cause notice issued by the Central Excise Department to the respondents; Exhibit P-11 is the order of adjudication confiscating the contraband; Exhibit P-12 is the sanction order and Exhibit P-13 is the signature of PW-4 in Exhibit P-1. 9. Among the prosecution witnesses PWs-1 to 4, PW-1 is the Inspector of Central Excise, who would depose to the effect that he intercepted the first respondent on 6-6-1984 at 4.00 p.m. along with some other Excise Officials at the Anna Statue Bus stop at Coimbatore and regarding the seizure of M.O. 1 bus ticket M.Os. 2 to 5 knee caps; M.Os. 6 to 8 papers; M.Os. 9 to 11 and 15 to 17 are the six gold bars totally weighing 2119.300 grams valued at Rs. 4,25,979.30; this witness would then effect the seizure of the said items under Exhibit P-1 mahazar. 10. PW-2 is the Inspector of Central Excise Department, who would depose to the effect of recording the statement of the first respondent on 6-6-1984 at 7.00 p.m. Under Exhibit P-2; he would also depose that it was he who recorded the statement of S. Raghuraman in Exhibit P-3. 11. 10. PW-2 is the Inspector of Central Excise Department, who would depose to the effect of recording the statement of the first respondent on 6-6-1984 at 7.00 p.m. Under Exhibit P-2; he would also depose that it was he who recorded the statement of S. Raghuraman in Exhibit P-3. 11. PW-3 is the Superintendent of Customs and he would depose to the effect that he was present at the time of first respondent's interrogation on 6-6-1984 and would say that he seized the gold bars under the mahazar Exhibit P-1 attested by witnesses and the first respondent, that he would then record the confession statement of the first respondent attested by the same witnesses and the first respondent; on 2-7-1984 he would record a further statement from the first respondent in Exhibit P-4 attested by witnesses, himself and the first respondent in which the first respondent stated that the seized goods were belonging to the second respondent. This witness would then interrogate the second respondent and record a statement in Exhibit P-5, he would then examine one Mani Achari on 1-9-1984 and record his statement in Exhibit P-6 attested by the witnesses and himself. In the cross-examination, this witness would say that he received the defence documents by post and would identify Exhibit it D-1 as the bill book, the Exhibit D-2 series, the receipts in Serial Nos. 601 to 612; Exhibit D-3, G.S. 11 of Second respondent wherein at page 16, 1210 grams of gold jewels had been sold to one Alagirisamy Achari on 5-6-1984, 910.300 grams of gold jewels had been delivered to one P. Raji Achari for the purpose of melting and getting the same back, which had been marked as Exhibit D-4. G.S. 12 book belonging to the second respondent would mark as Exhibit D-5 and at pages 15 and 16 of this Exhibit entries are there to the effect from 4-4-1984 to 5-6-1984, twelve customers have purchased gold jewels under Bill Nos. G.S. 12 book belonging to the second respondent would mark as Exhibit D-5 and at pages 15 and 16 of this Exhibit entries are there to the effect from 4-4-1984 to 5-6-1984, twelve customers have purchased gold jewels under Bill Nos. 601 to 612 which had been marked as Exhibit D-6 and at page 16; the entries regarding the delivery to two goldsmiths would be marked as Exhibit D-7 through this witness; G.S. No. 313 book would be marked as Exhibit D-8, in which at page 13 dated 5-6-1994 for getting the old gold jewels weighing 1210 grams from Krishna Jewellery and for melting the same and returning back to the party, the entries are found, which would be marked as Exhibit D-9; one Raju Achari's GS-13 book would be marked as Ex-D-10 in which at page 5 dated 5-6-1984 entries are found to the effect that all old gold jewels weighing 910.300 grams have been received and melted and returned to the party and such entries would be marked as Exhibit P-11. The ornaments book of Krishna Jewellery, Villupuram for Voucher No. 32 dated 5-6-1984 for the manufacture of primary gold ornaments weighing 2670.30 grams net weight being 2120.300 grams are found and the said vouchers have been marked as Ex. D-12. This witness would further admit that the jewellery shop namely Krishna Jewellery would belong to the second respondent and that he examined him at Coimbatore on 18-8-1984 and at that time he obtained his statement In Ex. P-7, the defence records were, at that time with the witness only and he obtained his statement after showing the defence records to the second respondent and that he could not say that at the time he recorded the statement from the first respondent on 2-7-1984 whether those defence documents were in his custody that in the statement there is no indication that he showed the records to the first respondent at the time of recording his statement, that both the respondents have promptly replied to the show-cause notice, that he did not make any enquiry with the customers of the second respondent; that he did not know who lodged the complaint; that it was not necessary to obtain the sanction order from the Gold Control Administrator and it was sufficient if it had been obtained from the Collector; that he did not know anything about Exhibit P-12. He would further answer in the affirmative in recording the correctness, overwritings, additions and alterations found in Exhibit P-6 that in Exhibit D-4; this witness would also opine that there would not be any difference in touch if the gold are primary gold; and that it is not proper for (sic) under Exhibit D-12 to have weighed gold twice. 12. PW-4 is a goldsmith, who would identify the first respondent to be a known person and that he was taken by the Central Excise Officials on 6-6-1994 at about 5.30 p.m. to Anna Statue, wherein he weighed 6 gold bars and the total weighments of all of them was 2119.300 grams and they were primary gold and the approximate value of the said gold bars would be Rs. 4 lakhs. He would also attest Exhibit P-13 mahazar. In the cross-examination he would admit that he was not qualified as goldsmith and he would not know what shall be the touch of 24 carat gold about which he did not know anything and that with great difficulties he identified the signature in Ex. P-13 since he was not keeping good health. 13. When the case of the prosecution is as stated above on the part of the defence during questioning under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the first respondent admitting his interception by the complainant officials and the seizure of the M.Os. 1 to 17 under Exhibit P-1 mahazar, further admitting the weighment of the gold to be correct but expressing that he did not know to write in Tamil and that Exs. P-2 and P-4 statements have not been read out to him that since the prosecuting officials asked him to lend his signature, he put his signature, but he was not given the copies of the said statements that he did not know anything about the statements given by Mani Achari, Raji Achari and Alagirisami Achari, further admitting that it was true that a show cause notice has been sent to him and that an adjudication had been made under Exhibit P-11 document. 14. The second respondent in his statement on his questioning under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., would say that he did hot know about the seizure of M.Os. 14. The second respondent in his statement on his questioning under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., would say that he did hot know about the seizure of M.Os. 1 to 17 from the first respondent nor did he know about that any statement given by him to the prosecuting officials; nor about the statement given by one Mani Achari in Ex. P-6, but he knew about the statement given by Alagirisamy Achari further admitting that the show cause notice having been sent to him adjudication order passed in Exhibit P-11; thus both the respondents would ultimately deny that having committed any offence much-less under Sections 8(1), 31, 36, 38, 55 read with 38(1)(a) of the Gold Control Act, 1963. 15. It is an admitted case on the part of the first respondent before the trial Court so far as the seizure of M.Os. 1 to 17 gold bars numbering in is weighing 2119.30 grams worth Rs. 4,25,979.30. So far as the second respondent is concerned, even though he would deny knowledge of the seizure since he was not on the spot both the respondents do not disown the M.Os. 1 to 7 from what evidence gathered and from out of the evidence is that the second respondent was residing at door No. 152, in Kamaraj Street at Villupuram and that he was running a jewellery shop under the name and style of "Krishna Jewellery" and that the first respondent was serving under the second respondent as his manager and that since the gold bars were concealed in the kneecaps without valid permit or receipt or account they got seized by them under the Gold Control Act, 1968 and registered the above case, which are not denied by the either side. 16. At the same time, the first respondent would deny having given Exhibit P-2 statement further stating that since neither he was well versed in Tamil, nor had it been read over to him by the prosecution officials and simply since he was compelled, he lent his signature. 16. At the same time, the first respondent would deny having given Exhibit P-2 statement further stating that since neither he was well versed in Tamil, nor had it been read over to him by the prosecution officials and simply since he was compelled, he lent his signature. He would also confirm that the gold bars were belonging to his master, the second respondent herein and the same had been handed over to him for safe custody and transit nor to be delivered to one Raghuraman, of Coimbatore and on the part of the prosecuting officials they would come forward to say that since the first respondent was not equipped with either receipts or permit to be in possession or to transport, the contraband and since in contravention of the provisions of the Gold Control Act, 1968, they were found transported they seized the same. P.W. 2 is one who is said to have recorded the statement of the first respondent and excepting him no one connected to Exhibit P-2 has been examined muchless the attesting witness therein nor to bring out the true veracity of the documents, especially in view of the fact that the author of the statement denies having given the same further stating that he did not at all know Tamil nor had the statement been read out to him and hence based on Exhibit P-2 statement, no conclusion could be arrived at regarding the above case. 17. It is the further case of the prosecution that the goods were sent through the first respondent to be delivered to Raghuraman and the Raghuraman's statement had been recorded in Exhibit P-3 but in his statement the said Raghuraman would deny that he placed any orders with the second respondent for the items seized to be sent to him and that he had absolutely no connection with or relationship regarding the seized items. It is pathetic that the said Raghuraman has not been examined as a witness and his evidence would have cleared many blackspots in the case. It is pathetic that the said Raghuraman has not been examined as a witness and his evidence would have cleared many blackspots in the case. The prosecution having refrained from examining the said Raghuraman it has failed in its duty to adduce the best of the evidence further, on a search held at the said Raghuraman's residence and his shop nothing had been seized by the prosecuting officials and hence the story of the prosecution that the seized gold bars had been brought for sale through the said Raghuraman goes without being established in any manner. 18. So far as the ownership of the gold bars is concerned, it is claimed to be that of the second respondent. It is P.W. 3 who recorded the statement of the second respondent in Ex. P-7 in which he had stated that gold bars were taken from the jewellery stock as old gold ornaments and melting the same with the help of the Goldsmith, they were sent to Coimbatore through the first respondent for the manufacture of new gold ornaments and that the voucher No. 32 dated 5-6-84 had been lost in transit and since it was not possessed by the first respondent, when they got seized and in support of this contention, the second respondent would rely on the defence documents marked as Exhibits D-1 and D-12 through P.W. 3 and from out of the cross-examination pertaining to the said defence documents even P.W. 3 had to accept, the existence of those documents even at the time of his interogation of the 2nd respondent and their coming into being etc., excepting to throw some doubt on our writing at one or two places it further comes to be known that P.W. 3 examined one Mani Achari and has recorded his statement in Exhibit P-6 but neither the said Mani Achari nor his attesting to Exhibit P-6 had been examined to prove the veracity of the statement. Regarding Exhibit P-7 statement said to have been given by the second respondent it is revealed from the said document that one Raju Achari and Alagirisamy Achari, who melted the old gold ornaments and created the gold bars and in spite of P.W. 3 coming forward to say that he examined the said Raju Achari on 19-6-1984 and obtained Exhibit P-8 statement from him and the other Alagirisamy Achari had been examined on 27-6-1984 by him and obtained Ex. P-9 statement neither those two persons were examined to confirm the veracity of the statement before the Court nor do their statements confirm the case put up by the prosecution and hence it should be admitted that the prosecution has failed to demolish the veracity of the defence documents in Exhibits D-1 to D-12. All the facts and circumstances while put together, especially while we take the prosecution and the defence documents, into paramount consideration, the story as told by the defence has not at all been either controverted or shattered by the prosecution besides establishing their own case. The trial Court has discussed vividly the evidence placed by both sides and had ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in its attempt to establish the case put up by it with proper and acceptable evidence beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused and ordered acquitting bath the accused from the charges framed. 19. The general principles of law is that under the Indian Criminal Jurisprudence, unless the case put up by the prosecution is proved with such abundant, valid, voluminous and overwhelming evidence and that the same does not leave any doubt in the mind of the Judge regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused would become entitled to be acquitted. The above case especially when it is looked at from the angle of the Supreme Court judgment stated supra, it should be accepted by the prosecution that it has failed to prove its case to the expectations of law and the judgment rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore being well considered and well merited one, this Court does not see any reason whatever to interfere with the said judgment of the Court below. 20. In result, the appeal shall stand dismissed, confirming the judgment rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 51 of 1988 dated 3-3-1989. 20. In result, the appeal shall stand dismissed, confirming the judgment rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 51 of 1988 dated 3-3-1989. Appeal dismissed.