Notice to owner under gold control law is required, but third-party claimants need not always be served before confiscation.

Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 requires notice before confiscation or penalty is imposed on the owner of the gold or other person concerned, but it does not require notice to every person who merely claims ownership. Where gold is seized from a person's possession, Section 99 raises a presumption of ownership, and that presumption may support confiscation against that person. In this matter, the authorities had found the applicant to be the owner of the seized gold ornaments, and that finding was not challenged in the reference. The issue of notice to third-party claimants was therefore treated as academic and not answered.

---

---

Issues: Whether failure to issue show cause notices to persons claiming ownership of seized gold ornaments vitiated the confiscation order when the adjudicating authority found the applicant to be the owner of the goods.

Analysis: Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 requires notice to be given to the owner of the gold or other person concerned before confiscation or penalty is ordered. The provision does not require notice to every person who merely asserts ownership. The gold was seized from the applicant's possession, and under Section 99 of the Act a presumption of ownership arose. The authorities recorded a finding that the applicant was the owner of the gold, and that finding was not referred for challenge in the reference. In these circumstances, the question whether notices should have been issued to third-party claimants did not arise for decision.

Conclusion: The question was declined to be answered, as it was academic in the applicant's case and the confiscation was based on a finding that the applicant was the owner.

---