( 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 Am

Click Here to Read the rest of this document