Summary
Litigation over 240 kilograms of gold seized in 1965 raised which law governed fresh confiscation adjudication after successive repeals and what redemption fine was payable. The Court held that the saved Defence of India Rules governed, rejected valuation at seizure under the Gold Control Act, and sustained Rs 11.04 crore with interest at 10% per annum.
Issues
- Whether repeal and statutory deeming provisions shifted pending confiscation adjudication from the Defence of India Rules to the Gold Control Act.
- Whether redemption fine was limited to the gold’s value at seizure.
- Whether interest should accompany the fine after prolonged litigation.
Provisions considered
- Section 117, Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968Repealed Part XIIA while expressly applying General Clauses Act Section6 as though that Part were a Central Act. (¶¶ 19, 42–45)
- Section 116(2), Gold (Control) Act, 1968Saved earlier actions through a limited fiction; it did not replace the law governing adjudication of pending Rules proceedings. (¶¶ 20, 28–30, 46–48, 61)
- Section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897Preserved liabilities and legal proceedings so that adjudication could continue under the repealed Rules. (¶¶ 36, 41–45)
- Rule 126M(8)(a), Defence of India Rules, 1962Authorised an option to pay fine instead of confiscation; discretion remained subject to the statutory scheme and rule of law. (¶¶ 40, 50–55)
- Sections 73 and 2(v), Gold (Control) Act, 1968The seizure-date value restriction applied to confiscation authorised by that Act, not the earlier Rules confiscation at issue. (¶ 64–68)
Held
- The Ordinance’s repeal of the Rules and preservation of liabilities remained effective when Parliament replaced it with the Gold Act retrospectively. This differed from an ordinance simply lapsing without legislative adoption. The Act’s deeming fiction did not make its substantive confiscation standards govern the pending Rules proceeding. (¶¶ 27–30, 42–48, 60–61)
- Section73 and its defined value did not apply to confiscation authorised by the earlier Rules. A fiction deeming earlier acts done under a later statute has limited consequences and does not retrospectively change their original authorisation. (¶ 64–68)
- Redemption discretion was not absolute: relevant circumstances, including the owner’s culpability, mattered. This was a calculated failure to declare, calling for no favourable discretion. The Court upheld Rs11.04crore, reflecting value when the 1994 redemption option was given, and rejected the Tribunal’s seizure-value approach and the finality objection. (¶¶ 50–58, 69–71)
- Given litigation spanning more than50years and the appreciation in gold value, redemption also required interest on Rs11.04crore at10% per annum. The operative paragraph did not expressly specify the interest commencement date. (¶ 72–73)
Result
Appeals disposed of. Appellant entitled to redeem the gold by paying Rs11.04crore plus interest thereon at10% per annum.