Repealed regime confiscation, redemption fine valuation, and interest on delayed proceedings were governed by saving provisions and existing rules.

Confiscation proceedings begun under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 had to be concluded under those Rules, because the repeal and saving provisions, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, preserved pending proceedings and Section 116(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 did not alter the governing law. The redemption fine in lieu of confiscation was not controlled by Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, as that provision applied only to confiscations under that Act; the fine was to be assessed with reference to the value of the gold when the redemption option was offered. Because the proceedings had been prolonged for years, interest was directed on the redemption fine to prevent unjust enrichment from delay.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation proceedings initiated under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 were to be concluded under those Rules or under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968; (ii) whether the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation was to be determined with reference to the date of seizure or the date on which the option to redeem was given, and whether Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 applied; (iii) whether interest could be levied on the redemption fine in view of the prolonged delay in the proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation proceedings initiated under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 were to be concluded under those Rules or under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Analysis: The confiscation was initiated under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and the repeal provisions, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, preserved pending legal proceedings unless a contrary intention appeared. The legal fiction in Section 116(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 deemed confiscations adjudged under the Rules to be under the corresponding provisions of the Act for limited purposes, but did not change the law governing the pending adjudication itself. The scheme of the repealing and saving provisions showed that the confiscation proceeding had to be completed under the Rules.

Conclusion: The confiscation proceedings were governed by the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and not by the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation was to be determined with reference to the date of seizure or the date on which the option to redeem was given, and whether Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 applied.

Analysis: Rule 126M(8)(a) conferred discretion on the adjudging officer to offer redemption on payment of such fine as he thought fit. That discretion was not controlled by Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 because that provision applies only to confiscation authorised by that Act, whereas the present confiscation arose under the Rules. The fine in lieu of confiscation had to bear relation to the value of the gold when the option to redeem was offered, since the owner was being given a choice between forfeiture and payment in place of forfeiture. On the facts, the valuation as on the date of adjudication and option was the correct basis.

Conclusion: Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 did not apply, and the redemption fine was to be assessed with reference to the date of the redemption option.

Issue (iii): Whether interest could be levied on the redemption fine in view of the prolonged delay in the proceedings.

Analysis: The proceedings had continued for decades, and the appellant would otherwise benefit from the delay if allowed to redeem the gold without compensating for the time value of money. To prevent unjust enrichment from litigation delay, the amount payable in lieu of confiscation was directed to carry interest.

Conclusion: Interest at 10% per annum was directed to be paid on the redemption fine amount.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order stood governed by the repealed Rules, the redemption fine was correctly linked to the date of the redemption option, and the appellant was required to redeem the gold on payment of the quantified amount together with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscation proceedings originate under a repealed regime preserved by saving provisions, the adjudication must be completed under that regime, and a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is to be fixed by reference to the value at the time the redemption option is offered, not by applying a later statute applicable only to confiscations authorised by that later enactment.

---