9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Service of notice under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act within the prescribed time frame. 2. Interpretation of the term "giving notice" under the Act. 3. Compliance with the provisions of Section 113 regarding the manner of issuing notice. 4. Consideration of the purpose behind Section 79 in confiscation proceedings. 5. Application of the proviso to Section 71 concerning ownership of the seized gold. Analysis: The judgment by M.P. Menon, J. of the Kerala High Court deals with the case of a gold dealer whose premises were seized with over 2000 grams of gold, leading to confiscation proceedings initiated through a show cause notice under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The petitioner contended that the notice should have been served within six months from the date of seizure, which was not met in this case as the service occurred after the deadline. The primary issue raised was the interpretation of the term "giving notice" under Section 79 of the Act. The petitioner argued that physical delivery of the notice was essential to meet the statutory requirement, while the court disagreed, emphasizing that sending the notice by registered post as per Section 113 sufficed. The court highlighted that the intent was to provide a reasonable opportunity for the concerned party to respond and for the authority to decide on confiscation within six months. Furthermore, the judgment discussed the purpose behind Section 79, emphasizing the need for timely action and the authority's decision-making within the prescribed period. Referring to a previous case, the court clarified that the date of actual receipt by the party was not the determining factor in assessing compliance with the notice requirement. Regarding the ownership of the seized gold, the petitioner argued based on the proviso to Section 71 and presented evidence indicating ownership by individuals other than the petitioner. However, the court emphasized that the satisfaction of the adjudicating officer was crucial, and in this case, neither the adjudicating officer nor the higher authorities were convinced, making it a factual matter not typically reviewable under Article 226. Ultimately, with no other substantial points raised, the court dismissed the Original Petition without any orders as to costs, upholding the confiscation order in the case.
|
