Mandatory statutory register non-maintenance under gold control law can justify confiscation, but penalties must remain proportionate.

Non-maintenance of the mandatory G.S. 13 Register under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was treated as a statutory contravention that could sustain confiscation, especially where the appellant's own statement admitted the ornaments were not entered and a private note book was no substitute. A minor discrepancy in the show cause notice was not treated as fatal, and the Article 20(3) objection failed because the statement was found voluntary. While the violation was upheld, the penalty and redemption fine were reduced on proportionality grounds because the punishment was considered excessive in light of the appellant's circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure and confiscation of gold ornaments for non-entry in the statutory G.S. 13 Register under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were sustainable. (ii) Whether the penalty and redemption fine imposed for the contravention required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure and confiscation of gold ornaments for non-entry in the statutory G.S. 13 Register under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were sustainable.

Analysis: The maintenance of the G.S. 13 Register was treated as a mandatory statutory requirement, and a private note book could not substitute for it. The appellant's own statements accepted that the ornaments were not entered in the statutory register, and the minor discrepancy in the show cause notice did not vitiate the proceedings. The constitutional objection under Article 20(3) was rejected because the statement was found to be voluntary. The contention that the department should have independently verified the customers was also rejected, as the appellant failed to produce supporting evidence for the alleged transactions.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention and the confiscation with option of redemption were upheld, and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty and redemption fine imposed for the contravention required reduction.

Analysis: While the contravention was sustained, the quantum of punishment was examined on the principle that penalty must be proportionate to the offence. Considering the appellant's status as an illiterate village goldsmith and the overall circumstances, the originally imposed penalty and fine were found excessive. The adjudicating authority's harshness was corrected by reducing both the personal penalty and the fine in lieu of confiscation.

Conclusion: The penalty and redemption fine were reduced, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction in monetary sanctions, while the finding of violation of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the confiscatory order were otherwise sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-maintenance of a mandatory statutory register under the Gold (Control) Act can sustain confiscation and penalty when supported by the appellant's own admission, but the quantum of penalty must remain proportionate to the proved contravention.

---