Third-party pledged gold ornaments escape confiscation, while primary gold contravention still attracts confiscation with reduced penalties.

Pledged gold ornaments identifiable with third-party owners and supported by accountal particulars were held not liable to confiscation merely because the appellants defaulted, though the appellants remained liable to penalty under the Gold (Control) Act. Primary gold obtained by melting a mangalsutra was still treated as a contravention of the Act and remained liable to confiscation, but the monetary consequences were mitigated by reducing the fine in lieu of confiscation and the personal penalty. The appeal therefore succeeded only in part, with relief confined to the pledged ornaments and reduced sanctions on the primary gold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pledged gold ornaments bearing accountal particulars and belonging to third parties were liable to confiscation for a violation committed by the appellants; (ii) Whether the confiscation of primary gold and the personal penalty required reduction in the circumstances.

Issue (i): Whether pledged gold ornaments bearing accountal particulars and belonging to third parties were liable to confiscation for a violation committed by the appellants.

Analysis: The ornaments bore the names of the parties, the amount advanced, the date of pledge, the weight, and purity, indicating a system of accountal accepted for purposes of the gold-control regime. On that basis, the liability for confiscation could not be fastened on the ornaments themselves merely because of the appellants' default, although a penalty on the appellants remained sustainable.

Conclusion: The pledged ornaments were not liable to confiscation, but the appellants remained liable to penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation of primary gold and the personal penalty required reduction in the circumstances.

Analysis: The primary gold represented the result of melting down a mangalsutra, which called for leniency, but possession of primary gold still amounted to a violation of Section 8(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The appropriate course was therefore to mitigate the monetary consequences rather than exonerate the violation altogether.

Conclusion: The primary gold remained liable to confiscation with release on payment of a reduced fine in lieu of confiscation, and the personal penalty was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: confiscation of the pledged ornaments was set aside, relief was granted in respect of the primary gold on reduced terms, and the penalty was substantially reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: Where pledged ornaments are identifiable as third-party property maintained under an accepted accountal system, they are not liable to confiscation for the pledgor's contravention, though the violator may still be penalised; possession of primary gold remains a contravention warranting confiscation, subject to mitigation of the monetary penalty in appropriate cases.

---