Gold Control Act interpretation on possession of ornaments and articles prevented confiscation and penalty from standing.

Seizure of gold sovereigns could not justify confiscation and penalty where the revisional authority proceeded on the incorrect factual assumption that no ornaments were in the petitioners' possession. Section 16(5) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was treated as clear: clause (a) applies where only articles are possessed, while clause (b) applies where ornaments, or both articles and ornaments, are possessed. The fifty grammes limit in clause (a) could not be imported into clause (b merely because a literal reading may seem anomalous. The confiscation and penalty orders were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized gold sovereigns were liable to confiscation and penalty under section 16(5) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and whether the limit of fifty grammes in clause (a) could be imported into clause (b) when both articles and ornaments were found in the possession of a family.

Analysis: There was no material to support the finding that no ornaments were in the petitioners' possession, and the revisional authority proceeded on that incorrect factual assumption. On the legal question, the language of section 16(5) was treated as clear and unambiguous. Clause (a) governs cases where only articles are possessed, while clause (b) applies where ornaments, or both articles and ornaments, are possessed. The fifty grammes ceiling in clause (a) cannot be read into clause (b) merely because the result may appear anomalous on a literal reading.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty orders could not be sustained, and the petitioners were entitled to relief.

---