Primary gold possession remained banned despite declaration provisions, and confiscation was upheld as lawful under the Act.

Primary gold remained independently prohibited under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, because Section 8(1)(i) imposes a direct ban on owning or possessing primary gold unless a specific exception applies. The declaration provisions in Section 16 were treated as limited mainly to articles and ornaments, so failure or non-action under that route did not legalise possession of primary gold. Where the gold did not fall within the Section 12 exception, confiscation under Section 71(1) followed from the statutory breach. Once the goods were contraband, confiscation did not amount to unconstitutional deprivation of property, and the constitutional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether possession of primary gold, though the holders were exonerated under the declaration provisions, still attracted the statutory ban and confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968; (ii) Whether confiscation of such primary gold offended constitutional property rights.

Issue (i): Whether possession of primary gold, though the holders were exonerated under the declaration provisions, still attracted the statutory ban and confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Analysis: The Act draws a clear distinction between primary gold, articles and ornaments. Section 8(1)(i) creates a direct prohibition against owning or possessing primary gold, subject only to express exceptions in the Act. The declaration provisions in Section 16 are directed principally to articles and ornaments, and the reference to gold in Section 16 operates only in the limited sphere of gold required to be included in a declaration. Section 12 alone provides a specific exception for certain primary gold, and that exception depends upon declaration. Since the gold seized here was primary gold and did not fall within Section 12, the fact that the petitioners were not proceeded against successfully under Section 16 did not affect the independent operation of Section 8(1)(i). Confiscation under Section 71(1) was therefore attracted where possession of primary gold contravened the Act.

Conclusion: The prohibition under Section 8(1)(i) applied, and confiscation of the primary gold was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of such primary gold offended constitutional property rights.

Analysis: Once possession of primary gold after the commencement of the Act was in direct violation of the statutory prohibition, the goods became contraband. Confiscation of contraband pursuant to the Act did not amount to unconstitutional deprivation of property. The constitutional argument therefore failed because the legal character of the seized gold, in the circumstances found, was governed by the statutory ban and confiscation scheme.

Conclusion: The confiscation did not violate constitutional property rights.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the seizure and confiscation were upheld under the Act, and the constitutional challenge was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Primary gold in unlawful possession after the commencement of the Act is independently prohibited by Section 8(1)(i), and non-liability under the declaration provisions does not legalise such possession or prevent confiscation under Section 71(1).

---