Confiscation of seized gold and rebuttal of ownership presumption under the Gold Control Act

Confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act was treated as sustainable unless the claimant proved that the seized gold belonged to a third party and that the third party lacked knowledge or connivance. The presumption under Section 99 that the possessor is the owner was held rebuttable, but the alleged ownership evidence was not accepted and no genuine claimant appeared before the adjudicating authority. Section 79 was therefore considered inapplicable because it requires notice to an owner or claimant, and on the facts found no referable question of law survived. The reference application was properly declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether a question of law arose for reference to the High Court on the applicability of the proviso to Section 71 and Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, in a confiscation matter where the seized gold was said to belong to third parties.

Analysis: The majority held that confiscation under Section 71 could be sustained unless it was established that the gold belonged to a person other than the person from whose possession it was seized and that such other person's knowledge or connivance was absent. The initial presumption under Section 99 that the person in possession is the owner was treated as rebuttable, but on the facts found, the alleged ownership evidence was not accepted and no genuine claimant had appeared before the adjudicating authority. On that basis, Section 79 was held inapplicable because it contemplates notice to an owner or claimant, and no effective issue of law survived from the factual findings. The dissenting view held that no referable question arose at all.

Conclusion: No question of law arose for reference on the facts found, and the application for reference was rightly declined.

---