Possession and notice do not prove ownership of seized gold; title disputes must be decided by civil court.

Under the Gold Control Act, seizure from a person's possession justified notice to that person, but possession and notice did not make him the conclusive owner of the gold ornaments. Where the adjudicating authority accepted that the ornaments belonged to other persons, it could not finally determine title to the seized property, and competing claims had to be resolved by a civil court. The proviso to Section 71(1) supported release to the true owner where the act or omission was not that of the owner. On that basis, release to the appellant on presumed ownership was refused and the departmental refusal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether gold ornaments seized from the appellant's premises, claimed to belong to his deceased mother, were required to be released to the appellant on the footing that he was the presumed owner and recipient of the show cause notice.

Analysis: The statutory presumption under the Gold Control Act enabled the department to issue notice to the person from whose possession the gold was found, but that did not make him the conclusive owner once the adjudicating authority accepted his own plea that the ornaments belonged to different persons. The proviso to Section 71(1) supported release to the true owner where the act or omission was not that of the owner, and the adjudicating authority under the Act had no jurisdiction to finally determine title to seized property. The dispute over ownership, especially where competing claims existed from another heir, was held to be a matter for a civil court and not for release to the appellant merely because notice had been issued to him.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to release of the gold ornaments on the basis of presumed ownership, and the departmental refusal to release them to him was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Gold Control Act, the adjudicating authority may decide confiscability and the reality of a claim to seized goods, but it cannot conclusively determine title to the property, which must be resolved by a civil court.

---