Confiscation under Gold Control law: no right to fine option, full seizure above possession limit, and limitation runs from Act seizure.

Under the Gold (Control) Act, the power to permit payment of fine in lieu of confiscation is discretionary and creates no enforceable right in the person from whom gold is seized. The statutory limit for a certified goldsmith is a ceiling on possession; once that limit is exceeded, the contravention is complete and the entire recovered quantity may be confiscated, not merely the excess above 300 grammes. The proviso protecting third-party interests and absence of knowledge or connivance does not apply where the conduct shows conscious involvement in converting jewellery into primary gold for transport. For limitation, the six-month period for a show cause notice runs from seizure under the Act by the competent authorities, not from an earlier police seizure in a different matter.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners were entitled, as a matter of right, to an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation under the confiscation provision; (ii) whether only 300 grammes of primary gold could be retained and the balance alone confiscated under the limit applicable to a certified goldsmith; (iii) whether the proviso relating to third-party interests and absence of knowledge or connivance prevented confiscation; and (iv) whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation under the notice provision.

Issue (i): whether the petitioners were entitled, as a matter of right, to an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation under the confiscation provision

Analysis: The power to permit payment of fine in lieu of confiscation is discretionary. The provision does not compel the adjudicating authority to offer such an option in every case of confiscation.

Conclusion: The petitioners had no enforceable right to demand the option, and the confiscation order was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether only 300 grammes of primary gold could be retained and the balance alone confiscated under the limit applicable to a certified goldsmith

Analysis: The statutory limit marks the maximum quantity of primary gold that a certified goldsmith may possess. Once the quantity in possession exceeds that limit, the contravention is complete and the full quantity is liable to confiscation; the provision does not require release of 300 grammes and confiscation of only the excess.

Conclusion: The entire recovered gold was liable to confiscation, and the petitioners could not claim partial retention of 300 grammes.

Issue (iii): whether the proviso relating to third-party interests and absence of knowledge or connivance prevented confiscation

Analysis: The protective proviso is intended to safeguard third parties whose property is used without their knowledge or connivance. Here, the jewellery was admittedly being converted into primary gold for transport, showing conscious involvement in the conduct leading to confiscation. In these circumstances, the petitioners could not invoke the proviso to defeat confiscation.

Conclusion: The proviso did not assist the petitioners, and confiscation was valid notwithstanding the claimed third-party ownership.

Issue (iv): whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation under the notice provision

Analysis: The six-month period begins from seizure of the gold within the meaning of the Act. The earlier police seizure, made in connection with a different allegation, did not start the statutory clock for action under the Gold (Control) Act. The relevant seizure for the Act occurred when the gold came into the possession of the excise authorities, and the notice was issued within six months thereafter.

Conclusion: The notice was within time and the limitation objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on all substantive grounds, and the confiscation and penalty order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation under the notice provision, the six-month period runs from seizure under the Act by the competent authorities, and a prior police seizure in connection with a different matter does not commence that period.

---