TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (10) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ming them that there is no other gold except 18 bangles in the Iron safe, they wanted to break open the same for which plaintiff opened the same and brought out the bangles in a cloth bag. Defendant No. 2 demanded to hand over the same to him for seizure but plaintiff refused for which former tried to snatch away the same. In hope of avoiding the seizure, she threw the gold ornaments with bag inside the well in compound of the house. Plaintiffs husband arrived at that time and explained to defendant No. 2 that bangles are his Stridhan properties and no provision of the Act has been violated. In spite of the same, the bag containing the gold ornaments were brought out of the well with assistance of a diver and taking husband of the plaintiff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l & (4) Whether the gold seized are ornaments? (5) Has the provisions of Gold Control been violated? (6) Are the seized gold, the Stridhan and personal properly of the plaintiff? (7) To what relief, if any the plaintiff is entitled? 6. Trial Court on assessment of evidence held that gold bangles seized do not belong to plaintiff, they are not ornaments as defined in the Act and the suit at the instance of the plaintiff is maintainable. 7. Mr. Ashok Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that proceeding for confiscation on consequent confiscation of gold is contrary to the provision of the Act and accordingly, the gold seized being ornaments is liable to be returned to the plaintiff who is the owner of the seized articl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 789 (Mangulu Jal and Others v. Bhagaban Rai and Others). 10. On the own showing of the Tribunal under the Act and the defendants in the written statement, plaintiff obstructed the search from the very begining. Even accepting the defence case, plaintiff threw the cloth bag into the well wherefrom it was recovered to be seized. Husband of the plaintiff specifically asserted before the statutory Tribunal that the gold seized belonged to the plaintiff. There is no provision in the Act that a person claiming the seized gold is to file a representation failing which his right to the property shall be extinguished. In such circumstances, the adjudicating authority was faced with the question of ownership of the gold seized. 11. Under Sec. 79....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade." On a bare perusal of the provision, there is no doubt that opportunity to show cause shall be given to the owner or other person concerned before an order of confiscation is made. Where there is a dispute with regard to the ownership of the gold seized, and persons concerned are known to the adjudicating authority, it cannot pass the order of confiscation by giving opportunity to the person from whom the goods are seized. Any adjudication and order of confiscation without notice to the person concerned would be in violation of the statutory provision and principle of natural justice as embodied in the said proviso is violated. 12. Plaintiff claims to be the owner of the gold seized. Under Sec. 99 of the Act any person who was in pos....