Restitution after confiscation is set aside requires market value on the date of annulment when property cannot be returned in specie.

Where confiscated property is later ordered to be restored and cannot be returned in specie, restitution is measured by the market value prevailing on the date the confiscation is annulled. The Court treated the recall of confiscation as fixing the point at which the owner's position had to be restored, and rejected reliance on the original seizure date. It also held that section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, did not govern such confiscation matters. In the absence of proof that the gold had been validly disposed of or sold, the Government was required to return equivalent gold or pay its value as on the date of reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after confiscation of seized gold was set aside, the owner was entitled to return of gold or, where return in specie was impossible, payment of its market value as on the date of the Collector's reconsideration order.

Analysis: The confiscation order was treated as having been lawfully recalled, and the consequent obligation to restore the owner's position arose on the date of that recall. The Court held that the seized gold had not been proved to have been sold to a third party and that the departmental record did not establish when it was disposed of or how the mint adjustments were made. In those circumstances, the Government could not resist restitution by relying on the original seizure date or by invoking section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was held inapplicable to such confiscation matters. Since the gold no longer existed in specie, equity and law required restoration of status quo ante by paying the value prevailing when the confiscation was set aside.

Conclusion: The owner was entitled to either equivalent gold or its market price as on 6 May 1985, when the confiscation order was set aside, and not as on the earlier date of seizure or original confiscation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order directing return of equivalent gold or payment of its value on the date of reconsideration was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: When a confiscation order is set aside and the seized property cannot be returned in specie, restitution requires the Government to restore the owner's position as on the date the confiscation is annulled, so the substitute monetary relief is measured by the market value on that date.

---