Primary gold prohibition survives declaration exoneration, and confiscation of contraband does not violate property rights.

Primary gold remained prohibited under Section 8(1)(i) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, because the statutory ban on possession operated independently of the declaration regime. Exoneration under Section 16(11) did not remove that prohibition, as the reference there was confined to gold required to be declared and the relevant exception for primary gold lay only in Section 12. Where possession was contrary to the Act, the gold was liable to confiscation as contraband under Section 71(1), and such confiscation did not amount to unconstitutional deprivation of property.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether possession of primary gold was barred by Section 8(1)(i) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 notwithstanding exoneration under Section 16(11); (ii) Whether confiscation of the gold was unconstitutional as an unlawful deprivation of property.

Issue (i): Whether possession of primary gold was barred by Section 8(1)(i) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 notwithstanding exoneration under Section 16(11).

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished primary gold from articles and ornaments. Section 8(1)(i) created a direct prohibition on ownership or possession of primary gold, subject only to express statutory exceptions. Section 16 dealt with declarations mainly in relation to articles and ornaments, and the reference to gold in Section 16(11) was confined to gold required to be included in a declaration. The exception relevant to primary gold was found only in Section 12, and that exception was inapplicable on the facts. Exoneration under Section 16(11) therefore did not remove the prohibition under Section 8(1)(i).

Conclusion: The prohibition under Section 8(1)(i) applied, and the petitioners could not rely on Section 16(11) to retain the primary gold.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the gold was unconstitutional as an unlawful deprivation of property.

Analysis: Once possession of primary gold was contrary to the Act, the gold became liable to confiscation under Section 71(1). The Court treated such prohibited gold as contraband, and confiscation of contraband was held not to attract the constitutional protection against deprivation of property. The challenge on constitutional grounds was therefore untenable.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not unconstitutional.

Final Conclusion: The orders of confiscation were sustained and the writ petitions were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly prohibits possession of primary gold except within specified exceptions, exoneration from a declaration provision does not dilute the separate statutory ban, and prohibited gold is liable to confiscation as contraband without infringing property rights.

---