Fuller investigation not essential where purchase and correlation were unproven in gold confiscation proceedings.

Omission to conduct a fuller investigation into the seller's bills and accounts did not invalidate confiscation and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act. The Tribunal's remark that further inquiry would have been desirable was only a cautionary observation, not a finding that the adjudication was legally unsustainable. The applicant remained bound to prove purchase of the ornaments and establish a clear correlation between the claimed purchase and the seized articles. Concurrent findings that the Act was contravened were not shown to be perverse or otherwise vitiated by the investigative lapse, so the order was upheld against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation and penalty order under the Gold (Control) Act was vitiated because the Department did not carry out a fuller investigation into the bills and accounts of the alleged seller.

Analysis: The Tribunal's observation that a fuller investigation would have been desirable was treated as a cautionary remark and not as a finding that the adjudication was legally unsustainable. The Court noted that the applicant still had to prove the purchase of the ornaments and establish a precise correlation between the claimed purchase and the seized articles. The adjudicating authority and the Tribunal had recorded concurrent findings that the applicant contravened the Act, and those findings were not shown to be perverse or otherwise vitiated by the alleged investigative omission.

Conclusion: The omission to conduct a fuller investigation did not vitiate the confiscation and penalty order, and the question was answered in the affirmative against the assessee.

---