Burden of proof in confiscation proceedings requires independent evidence; visual inspection alone was held insufficient.

In confiscation proceedings, the department must first discharge the burden of proving that the seized articles answer the description attributed to them. Visual inspection alone, without independent evidence, was held insufficient to establish that the hairpins were primary gold rather than ornaments. The authority's failure to consider the petitioners' request to lead evidence further undermined the order. On that basis, the confiscation could not be sustained, and the consequential penalty and show cause notice for cancellation of licence were also liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the hairpins as primary gold, and the consequential penalty and show cause notice for cancellation of licence, were sustainable in law.

Analysis: The only material relied upon by the department was the visual inspection made by the authorities, while no independent evidence was led to prove that the articles were not gold ornaments. In confiscation proceedings, the initial burden lies on the department to establish that the seized articles answer the description attributed to them by the department. Visual inspection by individual officers, without more, was held to be insufficient to discharge that burden, and the failure to consider the petitioners' request to lead evidence also weighed against the validity of the order.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the hairpins could not be sustained, and the consequential penalty and show cause notice for cancellation of licence were also liable to be quashed.

---