Gold confiscation upheld where possession was undeclared, seizure power remained intact, and redemption fine was discretionary.

Concurrent findings that the appellant failed to declare primary gold in his possession were upheld because the denial made when questioned, followed by recovery on search, supported the adverse inference and no perversity or absence of evidence was shown. The existence of a time limit for purchasing gold bonds did not bar inspection, seizure, or confiscation where possession was contrary to the applicable rules. The provision allowing a fine in lieu of confiscation was treated as enabling, not mandatory, so failure to offer that option did not invalidate the confiscation. The confiscation and penalty therefore remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the concurrent findings that the appellant failed to declare primary gold in his possession were perverse or unsupported by evidence. (ii) Whether the authorities lacked power to inspect, seize, or confiscate the gold before the last date for purchasing gold bonds. (iii) Whether the confiscation was vitiated because the officer did not grant an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation under the relevant rule.

Issue (i): Whether the concurrent findings that the appellant failed to declare primary gold in his possession were perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Analysis: The appellant's denial that he had any primary gold when questioned, followed by the recovery of gold only on search, supported the conclusion that the explanation later offered was unreliable. The Court declined to reappreciate the evidence in writ proceedings and held that the concurrent findings of the authorities could be interfered with only if they were perverse or based on no evidence.

Conclusion: The finding of failure to declare the gold was upheld and no perversity or absence of evidence was established.

Issue (ii): Whether the authorities lacked power to inspect, seize, or confiscate the gold before the last date for purchasing gold bonds.

Analysis: The notifications relied on did not bar inspection or seizure where possession of gold was contrary to the applicable rules. The Court held that the mere existence of a time limit for purchasing gold bonds did not disable the authorities from taking action against unlawful possession.

Conclusion: The challenge to the power of the authorities was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the confiscation was vitiated because the officer did not grant an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation under the relevant rule.

Analysis: The rule was construed as enabling, and not compelling, the officer to give an option to pay fine instead of confiscation. Since the provision left the matter to discretion, failure to grant such an option did not render the confiscation illegal.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not invalidated by the absence of an option to pay fine.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed in full, and the confiscation and penalty sustained by the authorities remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings challenging confiscation, concurrent factual findings will not be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence, and an enabling provision conferring discretion to offer redemption fine does not impose a to do so.

---