Quasi-judicial penalty discretion under Gold Control law did not justify enhancement against mere carriers of contraband gold.

Penalty under the Gold (Control) Act was considered in appeal, but enhancement was refused because the respondents were only employees acting as carriers of contraband gold for petty monetary consideration. The imposition of penalty was treated as a matter of quasi-judicial discretion, and interference would be justified only where the discretion was patently perverse or demonstrably arbitrary. On the facts, increasing the penalty was seen as serving no practical purpose, especially since there was no material showing recovery of the amount or any effective deterrent from a higher civil penalty on persons of straw. The original order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the respondents under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 called for enhancement in appeal.

Analysis: The respondents were found to be employees acting only as carriers of contraband gold for petty monetary consideration. The imposition of penalty was a matter of quasi-judicial discretion, and interference with such discretion was warranted only if it was shown to be patently perverse or demonstrably arbitrary. In the circumstances, the higher penalty sought by the appellant was considered to serve no practical purpose, particularly where there was no material to show recovery of the penalty amount or any effective deterrent to be achieved merely by increasing the quantum. The course more appropriate for deterrence was prosecution, not a higher civil penalty on persons of straw.

Conclusion: The request for enhancement of penalty was rejected and the original order was left undisturbed.

---