Locus standi in confiscation proceedings turns on proved ownership and participation, not a mere claim during investigation.

A person who neither established ownership before the adjudicating authority nor participated in confiscation proceedings cannot be treated as an aggrieved person with locus standi to appeal merely because he claimed ownership during investigation. The confiscation framework required notice to the owner, but ownership had to be determined on the basis of investigation and evidence, not on a bare claim raised at an earlier stage. The reasoning also drew support from the corresponding customs confiscation principle that a mere claimant during investigation is not automatically entitled to separate notice as of right. The appeal was therefore treated as not maintainable, and the confiscation order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person who was not a party to the adjudication proceedings and who had not lodged a claim before the adjudicating authority had locus standi to maintain the appeal as an aggrieved person, and whether a separate show cause notice was required to be issued to him before confiscation of the gold ornaments.

Analysis: The appellant had not been issued any show cause notice, had not asserted ownership before the adjudicating authority, had not participated in the adjudication as a claimant or witness, and had deliberately kept away from the confiscation proceedings despite being aware of them. The provisions governing confiscation contemplated notice to the owner, but ownership had to be determined on the basis of investigation and evidence and could not rest merely on a claim made during investigation. The presumption of ownership under the statute could be displaced only by proof, and the interpretation adopted for the corresponding confiscation provision under customs law supported the view that every person who merely claimed ownership during investigation was not entitled to a notice as of right.

Conclusion: The appellant was not an aggrieved person and had no locus standi to file the appeal; the plea that a separate show cause notice ought to have been issued to him was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order was left undisturbed and the appeal failed for want of maintainability.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who neither established ownership before the adjudicating authority nor participated in the confiscation proceedings cannot be treated as an aggrieved person entitled to challenge the confiscation merely because he claimed ownership during investigation.

---