The Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, served two separate numberices on Ratanbai and Nem Kumar calling upon them to show cause why the seized gold should number be companyfiscated and a penalty imposed for the violation of the provision of paragraph 9 1 i of the Gold Control Ordinance, 1968.
On July 10, 1968, the officials of the Central Excise separately recorded the statements of Ratanbai and Nem Kumar.
1 Sushil Kumar, son of Nem Kumar, who had by number attained majority, also filed a revisional application before the Central Government.
Ratanbai preferred an appeal against the same to the Admin istrator under the Gold Control Act, 1968.
Hence this appeal by special leave by the sons of Nem Kumar, Shantabai and Nem Kumar himself.
Nem Kumar in his statement denied any knowledge about the gold.
It is number disputed that the seized gold was primary gold.
Being aggrieved by the said order of the Collector.
Thereafter, the appellants Nos.
Govind Das, Girish Chandra and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
The Collector came to the findings that Ratanbai had full knowledge of the gold and was in companyscious possession of it for at least 8 9 years.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.1982 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No.
Both the revisional applications were dismissed by the Central Government.
So far as Nem Kumar was company cerned, the Collector held that it was difficult to sustain the charge of possession, custody and companytrol of the gold against him in view of the vagueness of the evidence and lacunae in investigation.
He said that he had companye to know of the existence of the gold for the first time when it was found out during the search.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. This appeal by special leave involves an inter pretation of the proviso to section 71 of the Gold Control Act.
Ratanbai filed an application for revision before the Central Government challenging the propriety of the order of the Administrator.
The appellant No.
Accordingly, by his order dated May 15, 1970, the Collector came to the companyclusion that it was only Ratanbai who had violated the provision of para graph 9 1 i of the Gold Control Ordinance, 1968 and di rected companyfiscation of the gold and imposition of penalty of Rs.38,000 on Ratanbai under paragraph 75 of the 1121 Gold Control Ordinance, 1968.
It was stated by Ratanbai that the seized gold was the self earned property of her late husband, and that the same had been kept in the iron safe about 8/9 years ago.
Both Ratanbai and Nem Kumar showed cause against the proposed companyfiscation and penalty.
The Administra tor, however, dismissed the appeal by his order dated Febru ary 23, 1972.
She admitted that the keys of the shelf had all along remained in her possession.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondents companyld number accept the decision of the learned Judge and accordingly, preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Harish N. Salve, P.H. Parekh and Dr. Y. Chandrachud for the Appellants.
It was provided in the will that each grandson would receive 500 tolas of gold at the time of marriage and the remaining gold would be equally divided among them.
Both Shantabai and Nem Kumar had each a son at the time of death of Kesharimal.
One Kesharimal Porwal, who had two flourishing business es a bidi factory at Kamptee and a gold and silver shop at Mandsaur died on October 7, 1952 leaving behind him surviv ing a widow Ratanbai, a daughter Shantabai and a son Nem Kumar.
On July, 9, 1968 the officers of the Central Excise, Nagpur, searched the residential premises of Nem Kumar and seized 10 slabs and 9 pieces of gold and 230 gold companyns, weighing about 42,404 grams having at that time a market value of Rs.7,63,000, which were kept in a cupboard inside a big Godrej iron safe.
The Ordinance was replaced by the GoAd Control Act, 1968.
Under rule 126 I of the Defence of India Rules 1962, every person other than a dealer was required to make a declaration as to the quantity, description and other pre scribed particulars of gold other than ornaments owned by him within thirty days from January 9, 1963, the date on which the Defence of India Amendment Rules, 1963 came into force.
Nem Kumar was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
It may be stated here that at numberstage the genuineness and validity of the will was questioned, number have they been challenged before us.
1 to 5 and Surendra Kumar, since deceased, son of Shantabai, filed a writ peti tion in the Delhi High Court.
5807 of 1983.
1120 The said Kesharimal also left a will dated February 10, 1952 whereby he bequeathed certain gold and silver to his grandsons.
Thereafter, by Gold Control Amend ment Act, 197 1, a new section 71 1 was enacted with retro spective effect from 1 9 1968.
After the death of Kesharimal, Nem Kumar had four more sons.
A declaration in respect of seized gold was filed by Ratanbai to the Central Excise, Nagpur, on July 29, 1968.
28 of 1982.
