Plain meaning of Gold Control Act notice provisions: family possession within the permitted limit made the notices without jurisdiction.

Section 16(5) of the Gold (Control) Act was construed on its plain language, and the limitation in clause (a) was not read into clause (b). Where gold articles and ornaments were owned or possessed by an individual or family within the permissible limit, no declaration obligation arose, so notices issued on a contrary construction were without jurisdiction. On the pleaded and effectively undisputed facts, the challenge succeeded and the seized gold sovereigns were directed to be returned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notices issued under Section 8(3) read with Section 16(5) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were without jurisdiction on the footing that the family owned and possessed gold articles and ornaments within the permissible limit.

Analysis: The statutory language of Section 16(5) was construed according to its plain terms. The provision referred to gold articles and ornaments, and the Court declined to read into clause (b) the limitation found in clause (a). Where articles and ornaments are owned or possessed by an individual or family, clause (b) applies on its own language. On the facts pleaded and not effectively denied, the family possessed articles and ornaments within the permitted limit, and therefore no declaration obligation arose. The notices proceeded on an erroneous construction of the provision.

Conclusion: The notices were without jurisdiction and the challenge succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were allowed and the seized gold sovereigns were directed to be returned.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision cannot be expanded by importing words that are not present, and where the facts show that the family owned and possessed gold articles and ornaments within the permissible limit, proceedings founded on a contrary interpretation are without jurisdiction.

---