Authorised seizure and valid confiscation of gold upheld where written notification and independent evidence supported the orders.

In a confiscation dispute under the Defence of India Rules, seizure of gold was upheld because the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise was duly authorised, and prior police detention did not invalidate the later lawful seizure. A Government notification was treated as sufficient written authorisation for seizure under the Rule. The confiscation and penalty orders were also sustained because they were based on material independent of any alleged confession, including the Collector's own examination of the seized articles. The Collector's personal inspection was held permissible and did not amount to a jurisdictional impropriety.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the seizure of gold was illegal for want of authorisation under Rule 126(L) of the Defence of India Rules; (ii) whether a Government notification amounted to authorisation in writing under the Rule; (iii) whether the confiscation and penalty orders were vitiated as being based on no evidence or on an inadmissible confession; and (iv) whether the Collector acted improperly by relying on his own inspection of the seized articles.

Issue (i): whether the seizure of gold was illegal for want of authorisation under Rule 126(L) of the Defence of India Rules.

Analysis: The seizure was ultimately effected by the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, who was duly authorised. The police officer had only detained the person and the property until the authorised officer arrived. Even on the appellant's own version, any initial custody with the police did not nullify the subsequent authorised seizure.

Conclusion: The seizure was not illegal and the contention failed.

Issue (ii): whether a Government notification amounted to authorisation in writing under the Rule.

Analysis: The Rule required authorisation by writing. The notification issued by the Government of India specifically empowered the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise to exercise the power of seizure under the relevant sub-rule. Such notification satisfied the requirement of written authorisation.

Conclusion: The notification constituted valid authorisation and the contention failed.

Issue (iii): whether the confiscation and penalty orders were vitiated as being based on no evidence or on an inadmissible confession.

Analysis: The Collector did not rest his order merely on the alleged confession. He rejected the trade panel opinion, personally examined the gold, and gave reasons for concluding that the articles were primary gold and not ornaments. The order was supported by material other than the alleged confession, and the challenge under the rule against reliance on an inadmissible confession therefore could not succeed.

Conclusion: The orders were not based on inadmissible confession or on no evidence.

Issue (iv): whether the Collector acted improperly by relying on his own inspection of the seized articles.

Analysis: The Collector had jurisdiction to determine the nature of the seized articles and could rely on his personal inspection of the articles themselves. Doing so did not make him both a judge and a prosecutor; a decision-maker may legitimately form an impression from direct inspection where the subject matter permits it.

Conclusion: No impropriety or lack of jurisdiction was shown.

Final Conclusion: The common challenge to the confiscation and penalty orders failed, and both writ appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An authorised officer's seizure is valid notwithstanding prior police detention, a notification empowering seizure can satisfy a requirement of written authorisation, and a quasi-judicial confiscation order is sustainable where it rests on independent material and lawful inspection rather than solely on an inadmissible confession.

---