Unauthorized possession of primary gold sustains confiscation; fresh notice and fine-in-lieu relief were not mandatory

Concurrent factual findings that the seized primary gold was in unauthorised possession were upheld, and writ interference was declined because the evidence supported the contravention and the court would not reappreciate those findings. The revisional authority was not required to issue a fresh show-cause notice or grant another opportunity when it merely relied on additional supporting circumstances and did not introduce a new charge, so no prejudice was shown. The option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation was treated as discretionary, not mandatory, and could not be claimed as of right after the confiscation and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether possession of primary gold in the circumstances proved constituted contravention of the prohibition on possession, custody or control of gold and justified confiscation and penalty; (ii) whether the revisional authority was bound to issue a fresh show-cause notice or grant a further opportunity when it relied on additional circumstances; (iii) whether the petitioner was entitled to an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.

Issue (i): whether possession of primary gold in the circumstances proved constituted contravention of the prohibition on possession, custody or control of gold and justified confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The notice had specifically charged contravention of the prohibition on possession of primary gold. The explanation that the seized gold was the melted result of the wife's ornaments was disbelieved by all the authorities on the basis of the absence of supporting entries, non-production of the intermediary who allegedly arranged the melting, and the denial by the refiners whose marks were found on the pieces. The Court held that the writ jurisdiction did not permit reappreciation of this concurrent factual finding, and the material on record supported the conclusion that the petitioner was in unauthorised possession of primary gold.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention was upheld and the confiscation and penalty were sustained against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the revisional authority was bound to issue a fresh show-cause notice or grant a further opportunity when it relied on additional circumstances.

Analysis: The original notice had already informed the petitioner of the basis of the proposed action and the alleged contravention. The revisional authority did not vary the adverse order, but only affirmed the concurrent findings. Reliance on the writings on the weighment slip was treated as an additional reason supporting the same conclusion, not as the foundation of a new charge requiring a fresh notice. The Court therefore found no denial of opportunity or prejudice.

Conclusion: No fresh notice or further opportunity was required.

Issue (iii): whether the petitioner was entitled to an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.

Analysis: The provision conferring an option in lieu of confiscation was treated as discretionary, not mandatory. No such request had been made before the authorities below, and the Court declined to grant that relief in writ jurisdiction after upholding the legality of the confiscation itself.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to claim a mandatory option in lieu of confiscation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the confiscation and penalty failed because the authorities' concurrent findings of unauthorised possession of primary gold were upheld, and no procedural or jurisdictional infirmity was established.

Ratio Decidendi: Where concurrent authorities, on evidence, reject the defence that seized primary gold was lawfully obtained, the High Court will not interfere in writ jurisdiction with confiscation and penalty, and a fresh notice is unnecessary when the revisional order merely affirms the existing charge and findings.

---