1. This application having been heard in a contested one, we do not consider it necessary to issue any Rule. In our view this case is concluded by findings of fact. Therefore, we do not consider this to be a fit one by calling upon the Tribunal to state the case.
2. Mr. Lahiry appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the finding that the Petitioners were dealers was perverse and not supported by any evidence.
3. Mr. Mitra appearing on behalf of the respondent has drawn our attention to the fact that the authorities under the Gold Control Act have recorded that it was a case of the Petitioners themselves, that some of the ornaments seized had been given by their alleged customers for polishing. The Petitioners themselves claim to be silversmiths. According to the definition of the deader in Section 2(h) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, any person who carries on directly or indirectly the business of making, manufacturing, preparing, repairing, polishing, buying, selling, supplying, distributing, melting process ... would be a dealer.
4. We are unable to accept the contention that the finding that the petitioners were dealers was not based on any evidence or that no reasonable body of persons could have reached the conclusion that the petitioners were dealers.
5. The other submission made on behalf of the petitioners was that the statement of Paresh Nath Shaw was not recorded in accordance with Section 70 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The officer, who made the seizure on the Act, did not himself record the statement of Paresh Nath Shaw, who was one of the partners of the Petitioners firm and the same was recorded by another person who was a relation of Paresh Nath Shaw. Secondly, it was claimed before us that the said statement was not recorded in the language of Paresh Nath who claimed to be an illeterate person. In our view, this point has also no substance and does not raise any question of law. We find that Paresh Nath Shaw has himself verified the application before us by affirming the same. He has signed in English. He did not take the assistance of any interpretor to have the contents of the said application read over and explained to him. We are unable to read Section 70 of the Act as laying down that in all cases the recording of the statement must be made manually by the officer making the seizure. The petitioners have not alleged that the person, who had taken down the statement of Paresh Nath had not correctly recorded the same. In our views, no prejudice has been caused by the said manner of recording.
6. For the foregoing reasons we dismiss this application without any order as to costs.