TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther, in the summary prayer clause, it has been stated that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge was one by which the application of the petitioners for release of the gold was dismissed, whereas actually a perusal of that order (copy Annexure P-3), shows that it was in fact the revision filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, dated 19.04.2019, allowing the application of the respondent herein, that was challenged, which revision (filed by the petitioners) was dismissed, vide the said impugned order dated 17.12.2020]. 2. Be that as it may, the background of the matter, as culled out from the impugned orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, as also from the application filed by the respondent Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division, Rohtak, before the learned CJM, are that the said application was filed on 27.06.2016, stating therein that a complaint was filed against the present petitioners in the year 1979 under the provisions of Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, as also Section 135 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging therein that on 02.03.1973 petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed CJM, Rohtak, vide the impugned order dated 19.04.2019, observed that in the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak (dated 18.08.1980), it had been specifically noticed that both the accused had denied the case of the prosecution and had contended that they were not concerned with the gold recovered, further having contended (in 1979-80) that it was supplied to them by one Ram Chander. Hence, in the order presently impugned, the CJM, Rohtak, has held that since they had taken a stand at that stage that they had no concern with the gold, there was no doubt remaining that the claim on the gold from them was baseless. 8. It was next noticed in the said order that Ram Chander had also suffered a statement during the trial in 1979-80, that he had no concern with the gold recovered from petitioner no. 1 and therefore again, the claim of the petitioners herein could not be accepted. Consequently, the application of the Central Excise Department seeking that the gold be allowed to be sold by way of public auction, was allowed. 9. It has also been noticed in the said impugned order that the gold was deposited in a locker of the Punjab National Bank, Jhajjar Road....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was erroneous. Further, with the order of the department directing confiscation of the gold also having become final vide the judgment dated 18.08.1990, they also cannot seek, more than 35 years later, that the gold should be returned to them. 14. As regards the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, having been repealed in the year 1990, no saving clause/substantive provision has been pointed out from the Repealing Act by which any gold confiscated during the validity of the said Act (between 1968 and 1990) should be returned to the person from whom it was seized/recovered. 15. In fact, the said enactment is seen to be a very short Act (which has also been reproduced in an order of the Customs Excise and Gold Tribunal, Delhi, 1991 (56) ELT 374 Tri Del.), and is reproduced hereinbelow:- "The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 6th June, 1990, and is hereby published for general information : - THE GOLD (CONTROL) REPEAL ACT, 1990 No. 18 OF 1990 [6th June, 1990] An Act to repeal the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Fortyfirst Year of the Republic of India as follows: - 1. This Act may be c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary intention is very clearly expressed in the statement of objects and reasons to the 1990 repeal Act. In this behalf, it would be apposite to refer to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C. Padma and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 713 (para 10) 8) This Court noticed that, in a parallel instance of simpliciter repeal, Parliament realized the grave injustice and injury that had been caused to heirs of LRs of victims of accidents if their petitions were rejected only on the ground of limitation. This being the case, this Court found that a different intention had been expressed and, therefore, Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act would not in that situation apply." 19. Thereafter, it was held by the Supreme Court that whenever there was an amendment made in the Defence of India Rules and/or a repeal of the said rules had taken place, there was always an inbuilt savings clause, and in fact Section 116 of the Gold (Control) Ordinance No. 6 of 1968 also made it clear that such show cause notices were not saved even if Section 6 of the General Clause Act, 1897, would be held to be applicable. Holding as above, the appeal in Sushila N. Rungtas' case (supra), was allowed, observi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er being one passed in exercise of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 21. Therefore, what has already been held hereinabove, to the effect that the petitioners cannot suddenly turn around and say that despite the conviction of petitioner no. 1 having become final and in fact even the order confiscating the gold having become final in the year 1980, the gold now be returned to them simply because the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, was repealed in the year 1990. In this context, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as had not been held to be applicable to the facts of the case before the Supreme Court in Sushila N. Rungtas' case (supra), needs to be seen in the context of the present case and consequently, is reproduced hereinbelow:- "6 Effect of repeal:- Where this Act, or any [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-- (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operatio....