( 51 ) UNDER rule 126l power was given to search any premises and seize any gold in respect of which it is was suspected that 'any provision of this Part has been, or is being, or is about to be contravened'. The gold so seized was liable to confiscation under rule 126m. A penalty could be imposed under rule 126p on the person who had failed or omitted to file any declaration without any reasonable cause.

( 52 ) FROM these provisions', which I have outlined, it is apparent that if the gold had been seized from Ratanbai, when Part XIIA was in force, it would have been liable to confiscation because, admittedly, no declaration had been made in respect thereof. Since, by virtue of the will, the grandsons of Keshrimal were the owners of the gold as from 7th October 1952, when he died, a declaration ought to have been made by Nemkumaras their guardian; for, rule 1261 imposed the obligation on the person who 'owned' the gold. That Ratanbai was in possession would make no difference, just as if it had been lodged in a bank or a safe deposit vault. But, in any case, she did not make a declaration either. So, on any view, the gold could have been confiscated. The Defence of India (Fourth Amendment) Rules 1966.-

( 53 ) ALTHOUGH a Gold (Control) Act was passed by Parliament in 1965, it was never brought into force. Instead, the Defence of India (Fourth Amendment) Rules were notified on 1st November 1966. Amongst other things, the amendments sought to ban altogether private possession of primary gold, and obtain declaration of holdings of ornaments above specified limits. Rules 5, 9 and 10 of the Fourth Amendment Rules did not come into force immediately. By rule 1 (2), it was left to the Central Government to appoint a date for their enforcement. They were brought into force on 1st March 1967 by a notification issued on. 25th February 1967.

( 54 ) RULE 9 amended rule 126h. It inserted subrules (1a) to (1g) after subrule (1) of that rule. The ban on the possession of primary gold was stated in subrule (IA) as follows : "no person (other than a dealer or refiner licensed under this' Part) shall, after the expiry of a period of six months from the commencement of the Defence of India (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1966, either own or have in his possession, custody or control any primary gold. During the grace period of six months allowed by this subrule, all primary gold was required to bedisposed of by sale to a refiner or a dealer or by conversion into ornaments. Details of the procedure to be followed for this purpose were set out in subrule (IB ). The other newly added subrules ensured that the primary gold was either converted into ornaments or standard gold bars. The period of six months, reckoned from 1st March 1967, expired on 1st September 1967. Consequently, after that date no one, other than a dealer or refiner, could be in-lawful possession of primary gold. Not even if he had made a declaration under rule 1261.

( 55 ) ANOTHER part of rule 9 added two provisos after the already existing proviso in clause (d) of subrule (2) of rule 126h The first of the new provisos said : Provided further that no person shall, after the expiry of a period of six months from the commencement of the 'defence of India (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1966, acquire any primary gold by succession. intestate or testamentary. ' Hence, after 1st September 1967, primary gold could not be acquired even by succession, whether intestate or testamentary,

( 56 ) RULE 12 of the Fourth Amendment Rules substituted a now subrule (1) for the existing subrule in rule 1261. The new subrule required 'every person' to make a declaration only in respect of 'any article or ornament, or both, owned by him'. It did not mention "gold'. A declaration in respect of primary gold was, therefore, no longer required or contemplated. "the reason obviously was that declarations in respect of primary gold, already held were presumed to have. been made under the original subrule (1) of rule 1261,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document