Confiscation of gold ornaments and penalties upheld where certified goldsmiths were found selling items and ownership evidence was unreliable.

Confiscation of gold ornaments and penalties on certified goldsmiths under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were treated as sustainable where the ornaments were found displayed or offered for sale, the surrounding evidence undermined the claim of personal ownership, and the G.S. 13 entries and other ownership records were unreliable. The record also showed sales activity inconsistent with the statutory role of a certified goldsmith and proved violation of the accounting provisions. On that footing, confiscation under Section 71(1) and penalties under Section 74 were supported by the evidence and the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the gold ornaments and imposition of penalties on the certified goldsmiths were sustainable under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Analysis: The ornaments were seized while some were displayed for sale and the surrounding circumstances, including the nature and quantity of the ornaments, the absence of reliable ownership documents, and the doubtful G.S. 13 entries, negatived the plea that they were the personal property of the appellants. The facts showed that the appellants were selling or attempting to sell new ornaments, which a certified goldsmith was not entitled to do except in accordance with the statutory scheme. The violation of the accounting provisions was also proved. The confiscation ordered under Section 71(1) and the penalties imposed under Section 74 were therefore supported by the record and by law.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties were upheld and were against the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized gold ornaments are found to have been offered for sale by certified goldsmiths and the surrounding evidence discredits a claim of personal ownership, confiscation and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 are sustainable.

---