Confiscation of gold and cross-objection rights under the Gold Control Act upheld, with penalty reduced as excessive.

Confiscation of gold ornaments and primary gold was sustained where no licence was produced as required by law, and private account books were not accepted as a substitute for the statutory register. The finding on the nature and purity of the seized gold remained undisturbed, and the redemption fine was upheld because no reliable material showed it to be excessive. The penalty, however, was reduced on the facts as excessive. In transferred proceedings under the Gold Control Act, the respondent had no right to file a cross-objection because such a right could not be retrospectively created by amendment; the cross-objection was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of gold ornaments and primary gold, the redemption fine, and the penalty imposed for contravention of the Gold Control Act, 1968 called for interference; (ii) whether the respondent had a right to file cross-objection in transferred proceedings under the Gold Control Act, 1968.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of gold ornaments and primary gold, the redemption fine, and the penalty imposed for contravention of the Gold Control Act, 1968 called for interference.

Analysis: The appellant did not produce a licence as required by law, and the explanation that private account books could substitute the statutory register was not accepted. The finding regarding the nature and purity of the seized gold was not displaced. The redemption fine was upheld because no reliable material was produced to show that it was excessive. At the same time, the quantum of penalty was found to be excessive on the facts.

Conclusion: The confiscation and redemption fine were sustained, but the penalty was reduced.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent had a right to file cross-objection in transferred proceedings under the Gold Control Act, 1968.

Analysis: The right of cross-objection was held to be unavailable in transferred matters because the amendment could not retrospectively enlarge substantive rights. A cross-objection depends on an existing right in law, and no such right was available to the respondent in the transferred appeal.

Conclusion: The respondent had no right to file a cross-objection, and the cross-objection was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of penalty, while the confiscation and redemption fine were maintained and the cross-objection failed.

---