Undeclared gold by licensed dealer established on admission, while fine and penalties were reduced for mitigating circumstances.

A licensed gold dealer's immediate admission that seized ornaments were purchased and kept undeclared for sale was treated as voluntary and reliable, and a belated, unsupported retraction was rejected. Unsubstantiated claims that some ornaments belonged to a spouse or were pledged by a goldsmith also failed. The statutory declaration and accounting requirements for gold owned, possessed, held or controlled by a licensed dealer were found breached, so contraventions involving undisclosed gold in possession or control were established. Mitigating factors such as the age of the business, clean antecedents, purity and value of the ornaments justified reduction of the redemption fine and penalties, while the liability itself was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized gold ornaments were liable to be treated as undeclared and unaccounted gold in the hands of the licensed dealers, whether the contraventions under the Gold (Control) Act were made out, and whether the redemption fine and penalties required reduction.

Analysis: The licensed dealer's immediate statement on seizure, admitting that the ornaments were purchased and kept undeclared for sale, was treated as voluntary and reliable, especially as it was not retracted promptly and the belated retraction was unsupported by explanation. The plea that part of the ornaments belonged to the wife of one appellant or were pledged by a goldsmith was rejected for want of proof. The statutory scheme required a licensed dealer to declare gold owned, possessed, held or controlled by him and to keep such gold in the prescribed returns and accounts. Since no declaration or proper accounting was made, contraventions of the declaration and accounting provisions, as well as the provisions relating to undisclosed gold in possession or control of a licensed dealer, were held established. At the same time, the age of the business, clean antecedents, purity of the gold and value of the ornaments justified a reduction in the quantum of fine and penalties.

Conclusion: The contraventions were upheld, but the redemption fine and penalties were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The liability for confiscation-related consequences and penalties was sustained on merits, while the monetary burden was substantially reduced and consequential relief for excess amounts was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A licensed dealer who admits possession of undeclared gold for sale cannot avoid liability by an unsupported and belated explanation, and where the statutory declaration and accounting requirements are breached, the contravention is established though the quantum of fine and penalty may be moderated on mitigating circumstances.

---