Strict construction of Gold Control confiscation provisions barred proceedings against a deceased person's estate without express statutory authority.

Proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could not be initiated or continued against a deceased person's estate in the absence of an express statutory provision. The Act required prior notice, adjudication and an opportunity of hearing before confiscation or penalty, and its confiscation and penalty provisions were treated as quasi-criminal and strictly construed. Because no proceedings had been initiated during the person's lifetime, liability could not be fastened on the estate years after death. The confiscation order and the redemption fine were therefore held to lack legal foundation and were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could be initiated or continued against the estate of a deceased person and whether the confiscation and redemption fine sustained in revision were legally tenable.

Analysis: The relevant provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 required compliance by a person who owned, possessed, held or controlled gold and contemplated prior notice, adjudication and opportunity of hearing before confiscation or penalty. The Act contained no provision extending a deceased person's liability to his estate where no proceedings had been initiated during his lifetime. The confiscation and penalty provisions were treated as quasi-criminal and therefore liable to strict construction. The Court distinguished confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 from confiscation regimes under other statutes and held that the liability could not be fastened on the late Maharaja five years after his death. On that basis, the notional one-sixth share analysis and the redemption fine fixed in revision lacked legal foundation.

Conclusion: Proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could not be continued against a dead person's estate in the absence of an express statutory provision, and the confiscation order and redemption fine were unsustainable.

---