Confiscation under Gold law must be confined to gold linked to the proven breach, not an entire stock in trade.

Confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act was limited to gold directly connected with a proved contravention, because Section 71 did not authorise seizure of an entire stock in trade for a licensing irregularity. The licensing record showed that the business was carried on under the original name and style, the change in constitution had been intimated to the Department, and renewals continued for years despite the authority's own misdescription in the licence records. Even if there was a technical breach of licensing requirements, it could not justify confiscation of the whole stock. The confiscation order was set aside, and the gold was to be restored or the redemption fine refunded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the appellant's entire stock of gold could be sustained on the footing that the appellant had contravened the licensing requirements under the Gold (Control) Act, and whether any alleged breach justified confiscation of the whole stock in trade rather than only the gold directly connected with the contravention.

Analysis: The matter turned on Section 27 of the Gold (Control) Act, which prohibited carrying on business as a dealer without a valid licence, and Section 71 of the Act, which permitted confiscation only of gold in respect of which a provision of the Act or the Rules had been contravened. On the facts, the original licence was issued in the name and style under which the business was carried on, the change in constitution had been intimated to the Department, and the licence continued to be renewed for years without effective correction by the licensing authority. The duplicate licence and subsequent renewals contained misdescription, but the appellant could not reasonably be treated as responsible for those errors. Even assuming a technical infraction of the licensing provisions, the consequence could not extend to confiscation of the entire stock in trade where the alleged irregularity did not justify such a sweeping result.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the entire stock in trade was not sustainable, and the appellant was entitled to return of the gold, or refund of the redemption fine if already paid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the confiscation order was set aside, and the stock in trade was directed to be restored to the appellant or, if already redeemed, the redemption amount refunded.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, confiscation must be confined to gold directly attributable to the proved contravention, and an alleged licensing irregularity does not justify confiscation of the entire stock in trade where the dealer's conduct is substantially supported by the licensing record and departmental renewals.

---