Gold control seizure beyond statutory limits was unlawful where accounted ornaments were seized without identifying the specific unaccounted items.

A licensed dealer's failure to update the prescribed gold account registers contemporaneously breached the statutory duty to maintain true and complete accounts, and the petitioner's explanation that vouchers existed did not cure that non-compliance. However, the seizure power under the gold control law was limited to gold in respect of which contravention was reasonably believed to exist, and could not extend to accounted ornaments or substitute stock where the specific offending items were not identified. The detention of the remaining ornaments was therefore held illegal and without jurisdiction, and writ relief was available notwithstanding alternative appellate or revisional remedies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner contravened the account-maintenance requirements under the gold control law by not updating the prescribed forms contemporaneously. (ii) Whether the seizure of the entire stock, including ornaments not shown to be unaccounted for, was within the power conferred by the seizure provision and whether the existence of an alternative remedy barred relief under Article 226.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner contravened the account-maintenance requirements under the gold control law by not updating the prescribed forms contemporaneously.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required a licensed dealer to maintain true and complete accounts of gold and to enter transactions as and when they occurred. The prescribed forms under the relevant rules were intended to give immediate and verifiable record of possession, acquisition, sale, and disposal. On the admitted and uncontroverted material, the prescribed registers were not updated for more than a week. The explanation that vouchers were available did not cure the statutory breach, because the obligation was to keep the accounts in the prescribed manner and within the statutory scheme of continuous disclosure.

Conclusion: The petitioner was found to have contravened the account-maintenance requirement.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure of the entire stock, including ornaments not shown to be unaccounted for, was within the power conferred by the seizure provision and whether the existence of an alternative remedy barred relief under Article 226.

Analysis: The seizure power was confined to gold in respect of which the authority had reason to believe that the Act had been or was being contravened. That condition had to exist in relation to the particular gold seized. The record showed that a substantial part of the ornaments had been accounted for, and the authority was unable to identify with certainty the specific ornaments alleged to be in breach. Seizing equivalent or substitute ornaments, or the whole stock, went beyond the statutory limit. The availability of appeal and revision did not bar writ relief where the seizure itself was without jurisdiction and the foundational condition for invoking the power was absent.

Conclusion: The seizure and detention of the remaining ornaments were held illegal and without jurisdiction, and relief under Article 226 was granted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the seizure power was exercised beyond the statutory limits, notwithstanding the petitioner's failure to maintain accounts in the prescribed manner.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure power confined to goods in respect of which contravention is reasonably believed to have occurred cannot be used to seize accounted goods or substitute goods when the authority cannot identify the specific unaccounted items; such action is without jurisdiction and remains amenable to writ relief despite alternative remedies.

---