Conscious possession under gold control law determined confiscation, with hidden slabs and rods set aside but gold foils upheld.

Under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, confiscation of primary gold required proof of conscious possession. On the same search and substantially the same facts, the criminal court found that the 12 gold slabs and 13 gold rods were not in the appellant's conscious possession, as they were hidden in a concealed cavity and the surrounding circumstances negatived knowledge. That common factual finding meant confiscation of those articles could not be sustained. The 18 gold foils were treated differently because conscious possession was found in relation to them, so their confiscation was upheld with redemption on fine, and the penalty was reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was in conscious possession of the primary gold so as to justify confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and consequential penalty.

Analysis: Possession under the Gold (Control) Act means conscious possession. The confiscation and criminal proceedings arose from the same search, same seized articles, and substantially the same factual matrix. The Chief Judicial Magistrate's findings, after inspection of the premises, held that the 12 gold slabs and 13 gold rods were not in the appellant's conscious possession, while the gold foils were in conscious possession. The gold slabs and rods were found in a concealed cavity beneath a heavy drawer, wrapped in old brittle newspaper, and the surrounding circumstances supported the conclusion that the appellant had no knowledge of them. The mere existence of separate departmental proceedings did not permit the confiscation order to stand where the common foundational facts were not established as conscious possession.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the 12 gold slabs and 13 gold rods was not sustainable and was set aside. The confiscation of the 18 gold foils was sustained with redemption on payment of fine, and the penalty was reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscation depends on conscious possession and the criminal court's findings on the same common facts negate such possession, confiscation cannot be sustained for the articles so held not to be in conscious possession.

---