Gold confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act was softened to redemption on fine, while the penalty was upheld.

Contravention of the Gold (Control) Act was established because the person concerned was not a certified goldsmith and the records did not tally with the seized gold, supporting confiscation and penalty. However, the surrounding material, including the nature of the gold and some support for the claim that old ornaments were being remade, justified leniency against absolute confiscation. The confiscation was therefore modified to permit redemption of the gold on payment of a fine, while the penalty was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of gold for contravention of the Gold (Control) Act was liable to be set aside or modified, and whether the penalty imposed was sustainable.

Analysis: The order recorded that the appellant was not a certified goldsmith and was carrying 300 grams of gold, while the certified goldsmith admitted sending the gold. The records maintained by the goldsmith did not tally with the seized gold, establishing contravention of Sections 8(1) and 42 of the Gold (Control) Act. At the same time, the material indicated that the gold was acid gold and that the claim of remaking old ornaments received some support from the records, justifying relief against absolute confiscation.

Conclusion: The absolute confiscation was set aside and the gold was made redeemable on payment of a fine, but the penalty was confirmed.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation was mitigated by permitting redemption on payment of fine, while the penal liability remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contravention of the Gold (Control) Act is established but surrounding circumstances justify leniency, absolute confiscation may be replaced by redemption on fine without disturbing the penalty.

---