Reasonable belief for seizure under Gold Control law depends on actual accounting entries, not a balance-striking omission alone.

Section 66 of the Gold Control Act permits seizure only where the officer has reason to believe that the Act has been, is being, or is attempted to be contravened. Jewellery already entered in the prescribed G.S. 12 account and supported by voucher was not liable to seizure merely because the daily balance was not struck, as that omission alone did not justify a reasonable belief of contravention. By contrast, jewellery received later but not entered in the G.S. 12 account at all furnished sufficient material for such belief. Accordingly, seizure of the entered stock was set aside, while seizure of the unentered stock was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of gold jewellery under Section 66 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 was justified where part of the jewellery was entered in the prescribed account but the balance was not struck and another part was not entered at all.

Analysis: Section 66 permits seizure only when the Gold Control Officer has reason to believe that the provisions of the Act have been, are being, or are attempted to be contravened. The 495 pieces of jewellery were entered in the G.S. 12 account and supported by voucher No. 27; the only omission was failure to strike the daily balance. That omission, by itself, was held insufficient to furnish reasonable belief of contravention. The 66 pieces received later were not entered in the G.S. 12 account at all, which was treated as sufficient material for reasonable belief of contravention in respect of that stock.

Conclusion: The seizure of the 495 pieces was unjustified and was set aside, while the seizure of the 66 pieces was upheld.

---