Statutory gold accounting failure: unexplained shortage and missing vouchers justified confiscation liability and penalty despite no actual seizure.

A licensed gold dealer must maintain true and complete accounts and issue vouchers for each transaction; failure to do so, coupled with an admitted shortage of gold ornaments, constitutes contravention of the statutory accounting scheme and renders the gold liable to confiscation under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Penalty under Section 74 may still be imposed even if the gold is not available for actual confiscation, because confiscation proceedings operate in rem while penalty proceedings are in personam. The dealer bears the burden of explaining an unexplained shortage once the lapse in accounting and voucher evidence is established, and Section 75 does not apply on these facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether shortage of gold ornaments not entered in the statutory accounts and not covered by vouchers attracted liability to confiscation and penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, or only the residuary provision under Section 75.

Analysis: Section 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 required a licensed dealer to maintain true and complete accounts of gold bought, sold, delivered, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and Rule 13 of the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968 required issue of a voucher at the time of each transaction. On the facts found, the shortage of gold ornaments was admitted, the ornaments were not covered by any valid voucher, and the explanation that they may have been delivered to customers without proper accounting was rejected. The Court held that contravention of Section 55 and Rule 13 rendered the gold liable to confiscation under Section 71, and that penalty under Section 74 was not dependent on actual confiscation or availability of the gold. It further held that confiscation proceedings are in rem while penalty proceedings are in personam, and that the burden lay on the appellant to explain the shortage once it was ed.

Conclusion: The shortage and non-accountal attracted Section 74, and Section 75 had no application.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the penalty order was sustained on the footing that the statutory accounting and voucher requirements had been contravened.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a licensed dealer fails to account for gold in the prescribed manner and fails to issue the required voucher, the gold becomes liable to confiscation under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and penalty under Section 74 can be imposed even if the gold is not available for actual confiscation.

---