Confiscation of stolen gold and currency was unsustainable where the owner lacked knowledge of the attempted illegal export.

Confiscation of gold jewellery and currency was found unsustainable where the goods had been stolen from the owner's premises and were sought to be exported by the thieves. The owner had no knowledge of, or intention to join, the attempted illegal export, and was treated as a victim of burglary and theft rather than as a person responsible for the offence. On those facts, the appellate order setting aside confiscation was upheld as a fair and lenient exercise.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of gold jewellery and currency could be sustained where the goods were stolen from the owner's premises and were sought to be exported illegally by the thieves.

Analysis: The goods were found to be stolen property and were also the subject matter of a police case. Although there was an attempt to export the goods illegally, the owner had no knowledge of, or intention to participate in, the offence. In these circumstances, the owner was treated as a victim of burglary and theft rather than as a person responsible for the attempted export. The appellate order setting aside confiscation was found to be a fair and lenient exercise on the facts.

Conclusion: Confiscation was not justified and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.

---