Prior notice to the actual owner is mandatory before gold confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act.

Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 requires prior notice to the actual owner before confiscation of primary gold or imposition of penalty. On the facts stated, the respondent had identified the gold as belonging to his wife, so she was the asserted owner and should have received notice. The provision was not read as extending "owner" to a mere possessor or ostensible owner. The Tribunal's view that the absence of notice to the wife affected the confiscation was treated as a plausible legal position, and the Revenue's request for reference was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for confiscation of primary gold and imposition of penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, notice under Section 79 had to be issued to the person asserted to be the owner, and whether the Tribunal was in declining to refer the question to the High Court.

Analysis: Section 79 makes prior notice to the owner a mandatory precondition before confiscation of gold or imposition of penalty. The respondent had stated at the very inception that the primary gold represented melted ornaments belonging to his wife, thereby putting the authorities on notice that she was the asserted owner. On that factual footing, notice ought to have been issued to her. The provision does not enlarge the term 'owner' to include a mere possessor or ostensible owner, and the Tribunal's view that the absence of notice to the wife affected the confiscation was a plausible legal view.

Conclusion: The reference sought by the Revenue was rightly refused and no ground was made out to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscation is sought under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, prior notice must be issued to the actual owner of the gold as asserted on the facts, and failure to notify that owner vitiates the confiscation proceeding.

---