Statutory notice by prescribed dispatch satisfies service requirements; confiscation finding on statutory burden remained undisturbed.

Notice under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act was held valid when dispatched in the prescribed manner within the six-month statutory period; actual physical receipt by the person concerned was not essential, as that would undermine enforcement by allowing avoidance of service. On the confiscation issue, the proviso to Section 71 placed the burden on the claimant to satisfy the adjudicating authority that the conditions were met, and the adverse finding was treated as a factual determination not ordinarily open to interference in writ jurisdiction. The confiscation order was sustained and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 had to be physically delivered to the petitioner within six months from the date of seizure, and (ii) whether confiscation was barred under the proviso to Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 on the footing that the gold belonged to others.

Issue (i): Whether the notice under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 had to be physically delivered to the petitioner within six months from the date of seizure

Analysis: Section 79 requires notice in writing before confiscation, while Section 113 prescribes the mode of service by tendering or sending the notice by registered post. The requirement of "giving" notice was held to be satisfied by sending the notice in the prescribed manner within the statutory period. Physical receipt by the person concerned was not treated as essential, because such a construction would permit evasion by remaining away from the premises or refusing delivery and would defeat the legislative purpose of fixing a six-month limit for initiating confiscation proceedings.

Conclusion: The notice was validly given within time, and the challenge based on delayed actual service failed.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation was barred under the proviso to Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 on the footing that the gold belonged to others

Analysis: The proviso to Section 71 required the concerned party to establish to the satisfaction of the adjudicating officer that the prescribed conditions were fulfilled. The authorities were not satisfied on the evidence, and the matter was essentially one of fact. Such a finding was not ordinarily open to interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not barred under the proviso to Section 71, and the factual finding against the petitioner stood.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order was sustained and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires notice to be given within a prescribed period, dispatch of the notice in the statutorily prescribed manner within that period satisfies the requirement; and a finding that the statutory burden under a confiscation proviso is not discharged is a factual determination ordinarily not interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

---