9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the person from whom it was seized/recovered. In the present case, nothing actually remained sub-judice after the judgment of the appellate court affirming the conviction of petitioner no. 1 under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, as also the Customs Act, 1962 and upholding the order of confiscation of the gold recovered from him - If, therefore, this court were to interpret that because of the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, all proceedings taken thereunder as had already become final prior to its repealment in 1990, it would amount to directing that all action taken during the 22 years of the operation of that Act, would be null and void and therefore any penalty etc. imposed and all gold recovered during such period would be liable to be returned to the persons from whom it was confiscated. There being no savings clause or any substantive provision in the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990, to the effect that all action taken during the validity of the said Act would stand reversed, or that the gold seized during the validity of the Act be returned to the person from which it was seized, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners in that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons 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 no. 1 was apprehended carrying 02 gold biscuits, 1 cut piece of gold biscuit, 7 pieces of primary gold and 3 pieces of gold bangles, with the gold in all weighing 332.8 grams, and thereby was alleged to have committed offences under the said provisions. 3. Upon that complaint filed, eventually, vide a judgment dated 06.02.1980 (copy Annexure P-4 with the present petition), the CJM, Rohtak, found both the petitioners guilty of the commission of the aforesaid offences and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/- each (on account of each offence) though with the sentences in respect of each offence ordered to run concurrently. 4. The petitioners having appealed against that judgment and order, that appeal was allowed qua petitioner no. 2 Laxmi Narain (now deceased) giving him the benefit of doubt; and with the sentence of petitioner no. 1, Chander Parkash, reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment on each count, with the fine imposed upon him and the default imprison ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 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, Rohtak, at the initial stage itself, with the applicant department (respondent herein) duly paying rent for the locker and therefore it had been contended by the department that there was a financial loss on that account also. 10. Thereafter, in the order disposing of the revision filed against the order of the CJM, the learned Sessions Judge after noticing the background of the case and the reasoning for the application of the respondent department having been allowed (by the CJM), further also noticed that in the last paragraph of the judgment dated 18.08.1980, it was also held that the gold was rightly confiscated by the department with that order (of confiscation) also upheld. Consequently, the revision filed by the present petitioners was dismissed, on the ground that even the said order had attained finality and hence the revision petition had no merit in it. 11. Before this court today, learned counsel for the State having pointed out that even before the learned trial court, in the years 1979-80, the petitioners ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ol) Act, 1968. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Fortyfirst Year of the Republic of India as follows: - 1. This Act may be called the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990. 2. The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is hereby repealed. 16. Though learned counsel for the petitioners in fact has not cited any judgment whatsoever on the issue, it is seen that a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushila N. Rungta (deceased) through LRs vs. The Tax Recovery Officer (Civil Appeal No. 10824 of 2018, decided on 30.10.2018) considers the effect of the said repealing Act, though in the context of an old appeal pending before that court since 1972. 17. In that case, after an order dated 03.01.1970 was passed by the Collector of Central Excise, essentially imposing a penalty of ₹ 25,000/- on the appellant therein, thereafter, exercising suo motu powers under the Defence of India Rules, a show cause notice dated 01.06.1971 was issued (by the concerned Central Excise Authority), by which certain items of gold were sought to be confiscated, which notice was challenged in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed on 29.09.1972. Against that order an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1897, would be held to be applicable. Holding as above, the appeal in Sushila N. Rungtas' case (supra), was allowed, observing that in fact the show cause notice dated 01.06.1971 no longer survived. 20. Even having considered the above, in my opinion, the ratio of the said judgment/order of the Supreme Court would not apply in the present case; firstly, in view of the fact that the proceedings in the show cause notice dated 01.06.1971 as was subject matter of that appeal, had been ordered to be stayed in the year 1973 itself by the Supreme Court, whereas in the present case, the judgments and orders passed in the context of the offences committed under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and Section 135 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, became final with no challenge thereto, in the year 1980 itself. Further, though it is very obvious, as has been held by the Apex Court, that the object and reason for repealing the Gold (Control) Act was that it had not achieved the desired objectives and had in fact caused hardship and harassment to artisans and small self-employed gold smiths (as stated in the objects and reasons of the Repealing Act) and therefore it was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. 22. Thus, as per clause (b) of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, a repeal of a statute would not affect the previous operations of such enactment or even affect anything duly done under its provisions or any consequence suffered thereunder. Hence, even though it has been held in Rungtas' case that Section 6 of the Gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
