Burden of proof under Gold Control Act: confiscation of household gold and penalty failed without evidence of contravention.

The Department had to first show that the residential portion was being used as business premises, or that the primary gold and ornaments were possessed by or belonged to the appellant in contravention of the Gold Control Act; that initial burden was not discharged on the record. The residential portion was jointly occupied by the appellant and family members, and affidavits supporting the explanation that the ornaments belonged to the womenfolk were not discredited by rebuttal evidence. The further view that the ornaments could serve as a covering or receptacle for primary gold under Section 71(2) was unsustainable, because ornaments could not be treated as such for that purpose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of primary gold and gold ornaments found in the residential portion of the premises and the personal penalty imposed on the certified goldsmith were sustainable under the Gold Control Act.

Analysis: The Department was required to establish, at the outset, that the residential portion was being used as business premises or that the primary gold and ornaments found there were possessed by or belonged to the appellant in contravention of the Act. The record showed no direct or circumstantial evidence to discharge that initial burden. The residential portion was jointly occupied by the appellant and members of his family, and the appellant's explanation that the articles belonged to the womenfolk was supported by affidavits. Mere relationship of the deponents did not justify rejection of those affidavits in the absence of rebuttal evidence. The finding that ornaments were liable to confiscation as a covering or receptacle for primary gold was also unsustainable, since ornaments could not be treated as such for the purpose of Section 71(2).

Conclusion: The confiscation and the personal penalty were not justified and were set aside.

---