Redemption of confiscated gold must be implemented once conditions are met; later release direction was only consequential.

Where a statutory appellate order directing redemption of confiscated gold had become final, the authorities were bound to implement it once the redemption fine and reduced penalty were duly deposited. The Tribunal's later release direction was consequential and was not barred by functus officio, because it did not reopen the appeal but only enforced the earlier final order. The challenge to the redemption fine under Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 failed, as the provision leaves the quantum to adjudicatory discretion within the statutory limit. Non-impleadment of the person from whom the gold was seized was not fatal, and a pending criminal prosecution did not prevent delivery of the gold.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner had complied with the Tribunal's direction to deposit the redemption fine and penalty within the stipulated time and was therefore entitled to delivery of the gold; (ii) whether the Tribunal had become functus officio after its appellate order and lacked jurisdiction to issue the subsequent release direction; (iii) whether the redemption fine fixed under Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was invalid; (iv) whether non-impleadment of the person from whom the gold had been seized was fatal to the writ petition; and (v) whether pendency of the criminal proceeding disentitled the petitioner from getting delivery of the gold.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner had complied with the Tribunal's direction to deposit the redemption fine and penalty within the stipulated time and was therefore entitled to delivery of the gold.

Analysis: The petitioner deposited Rs. 25,000 within the period fixed by the Tribunal for redemption and separately deposited the reduced penalty of Rs. 3,000. The later order of the Tribunal also proceeded on the footing that the amounts had already been deposited. The authorities, having accepted the deposits and not challenged the Tribunal's orders, could not refuse delivery on the ground of non-compliance.

Conclusion: The petitioner had complied with the Tribunal's direction and was entitled to release of the gold.

Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal had become functus officio after its appellate order and lacked jurisdiction to issue the subsequent release direction.

Analysis: The Tribunal had already decided the appeal and its order had attained finality. The later direction did not reopen the appeal or alter the earlier adjudication; it merely recorded that the redemption condition had been satisfied and directed implementation of the earlier order. The doctrine of functus officio did not bar such a consequential direction.

Conclusion: The Tribunal retained authority to issue the subsequent release direction and the objection based on functus officio failed.

Issue (iii): whether the redemption fine fixed under Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was invalid.

Analysis: Section 73 permits an option to redeem confiscated goods on payment of a fine not exceeding the value of the goods, leaving the quantum to the discretion of the adjudicating authority. The legality of the original confiscation order and the redemption fine had not been challenged by the authorities, and the provision did not support the challenge raised in the writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge to the redemption fine under Section 73 failed.

Issue (iv): whether non-impleadment of the person from whom the gold had been seized was fatal to the writ petition.

Analysis: The operative Tribunal orders were passed in proceedings to which the Collector of Central Excise was a party. The writ petition sought enforcement of that final order against the authorities bound by it. The other person was not a party to the appeal whose order was under implementation and was not a necessary party to the enforcement proceedings.

Conclusion: Non-impleadment of that person was not fatal to the writ petition.

Issue (v): whether pendency of the criminal proceeding disentitled the petitioner from getting delivery of the gold.

Analysis: The confiscation and redemption proceedings under the Act were distinct from any criminal prosecution for violation of the statute. The pending criminal case did not require retention of the gold where the Tribunal had already ordered its release on redemption and that order had become final.

Conclusion: Pendency of the criminal proceeding did not bar release of the gold.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's final and unchallenged directions for redemption and release had to be implemented, and the writ petition succeeded with a mandamus for delivery of the gold.

Ratio Decidendi: A final statutory appellate order directing redemption of confiscated goods must be implemented when the redemption conditions are satisfied; a consequential direction enforcing that order is not barred by functus officio, and pendency of a separate criminal prosecution does not defeat such release.

---