When fraud cases are filed by the Bank against a pawnor who committed fraud by pledging spurious gold ornaments, in the court it is often asked by the Adv of the fraudster that the party had pledged pure gold ornaments only and afterwards those might be replaced with spurious gold by the bank offcials.
In normal circumstances, the Bank often do second apprisal of pledged ornaments and also the items are inspected during the annual inspection by the H.O, but these all happen without the presence of the pawnor.
In these circumstances how a banker can counter the argument of the Adv that the ornaments would have been replaced by the officials by fake gold????
