Proof of interception and proportional confiscation under the Gold Control regime: unproved allegations fail, but admitted accounting defaults sustain confiscation.

An alleged contravention based on public interception and apprehension was rejected because the Department's version was not proved by reliable evidence; the panchanama was treated as non-substantive, supporting materials weakened the case, and the Section 36 read with Rule 13(1) allegation failed. By contrast, admitted non-entry of three transactions established contravention of Section 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, so confiscation of the gold was sustained. The redemption fine was reduced as excessive in light of the limited proved default, and the penalty was set aside once the more serious allegation failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Department had proved the alleged interception and apprehension of the appellant in a public place and the alleged contravention of Section 36 of the Gold (Control) Act read with Rule 13(1) of the Gold Control Rules. (ii) Whether the admitted failure to make entries in respect of certain transactions constituted contravention of Section 55 of the Gold (Control) Act and justified confiscation, fine, and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the Department had proved the alleged interception and apprehension of the appellant in a public place and the alleged contravention of Section 36 of the Gold (Control) Act read with Rule 13(1) of the Gold Control Rules.

Analysis: The Department's version was found doubtful in view of the appellant's immediate statement, the contemporaneous letter, and the shopkeeper's affidavit supporting the claim that the appellant was taken from the shop. The panchanama was treated as non-substantive evidence, and the absence of local witnesses, the identical inspector reports, and the failure to properly test the affidavit weakened the Department's case. The finding of contravention under Section 36 read with Rule 13(1) was held to be unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The alleged contravention of Section 36 of the Gold (Control) Act read with Rule 13(1) of the Gold Control Rules was not proved and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the admitted failure to make entries in respect of certain transactions constituted contravention of Section 55 of the Gold (Control) Act and justified confiscation, fine, and penalty.

Analysis: The appellant admitted non-entry of three transactions, and the explanation offered for the omission was belated and unsupported. This established contravention of Section 55. The seized gold therefore became liable to confiscation. However, the fine imposed was considered excessive in light of the limited nature of the proven default, and the penalty was not warranted once the finding under Section 36 and Rule 13(1) fell away.

Conclusion: Contravention of Section 55 of the Gold (Control) Act was proved, confiscation was sustained, the redemption fine was reduced, and the penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the finding of contravention under Section 36 read with Rule 13(1) and the penalty were set aside, while confiscation for the proven Section 55 default was maintained with reduced redemption fine.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of confiscation or penalty cannot rest on an unproved allegation of public apprehension or on panchnama entries alone; where only a limited accounting default is established, confiscation may stand but the quantum of fine and penalty must be proportionate to the proved contravention.

---