Absence of required transfer voucher sustains confiscation under gold control law, while penalties may be reduced on the facts.

Absence of a required transfer voucher under the Gold (Control) Act can sustain confiscation of gold even where surrounding evidence supports the defence version, and the penalty may be moderated in light of the proved facts. On the first issue, the appellate authority upheld confiscation of the gold but allowed redemption on payment of fine and reduced the appellant's penalty. On the second issue, it held that a certified goldsmith transferring gold for die-cutting or similar work must issue a voucher, and non-issuance constituted a breach justifying the penalty; the finding on shortage in account was also maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of gold recovered from the appellant and the penalty imposed on him were sustainable on the evidence and under the Gold (Control) Act; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed on the certified goldsmith for non-issuance of voucher and shortage in account was sustainable under the statutory scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of gold recovered from the appellant and the penalty imposed on him were sustainable on the evidence and under the Gold (Control) Act.

Analysis: The material on record included the GS-13 register entry, the statement of the certified goldsmith, the statement of the appellant's father, and the contemporaneous telegram supporting the defence version. The adverse view taken by the lower authorities rested largely on contradictory statements of the appellant and on suspicion regarding later entries, but the appellate authority found that the supporting evidence was not displaced. At the same time, the absence of a voucher for transfer of gold attracted the confiscatory consequence under the statutory scheme, though the circumstances justified a lesser monetary burden in the form of redemption on fine and reduction of penalty.

Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld, redemption on payment of fine was allowed, and the penalty on the appellant was reduced.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed on the certified goldsmith for non-issuance of voucher and shortage in account was sustainable under the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The certified goldsmith was legally bound, when transferring gold for die-cutting or allied purposes, to issue a voucher accompanying the gold. The non-issuance of such voucher constituted a breach of the governing rules. The finding on shortage in account and the resulting penalty were therefore maintained, though the appellate authority rested the liability on the voucher requirement rather than on the broader basis adopted below.

Conclusion: The penalty on the certified goldsmith was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by sustaining confiscation of the gold, granting redemption on fine, reducing the appellant's penalty, and maintaining the certified goldsmith's penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory breach is established by the absence of a required transfer voucher, confiscation may be sustained even if surrounding evidence supports the defence version, but the quantum of penalty may be moderated in light of the proved factual circumstances.

---