An order of confiscation of gold ornaments under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 cannot be made unless the owner of the gold is given an opportunity to show cause.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is the appellant having failed to get a direction for return of the gold seized by the defendants in exercise of powers under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. On 4-2-1974, defendant No. 2 searched house of the plaintiff in absence of her husband. In spite of plaintiff informing them that there is no other gold except 18 bangles in the Iron safe, they wanted to break open the same for which plaintiff opened the same and brought out the bangles in a cloth bag. Defendant No. 2 demanded to hand over the same to him for seizure but plaintiff refused for which former tried to snatch away the same. In hope of avoiding the seizure, she threw the gold ornaments with bag inside the well in compound of the house plaintiff's husband arrived at that time and explained to defendant No. 2 that bangles are his Stridhan properties and no provision of the Act has been violated. In spite of the same, the bag containing the gold ornaments were brought out of the well with assistance of a diver and taking husband of the plaintiff to the police station seized the same. Accordingly, suit has been filed claiming the seizure to be illegal.

3. Case of the defendants is that house of plaintiff's husband was searched in his presence but plaintiff obstructed. Taking keys of the iron safe from her husband, she went inside the room and closed the door. At that time the gold control staff heard something being thrown to the well. After local police arrived, gold ornaments were recovered from the well and were seized. plaintiff's husband was unable to explain about the seized gold. Thereafter, following the legal formalities and procedure, gold was found to be primary gold and accordingly, the same was confiscated. Plaintiff who was present at the time of seizure did not make any representation, though she is the owner of the gold although she was fully aware of the proceeding against her husband.

4. Plaintiff examined four witnesses and proved the notice to her husband as well as her objection amongst other documents. Besides, she produced a piece of gold bangle marked M.O.I. Defendants examined three witnesses, proved the seizure list, list memo certificate, order confiscating the gold, complaint by the plaintiff in criminal court, his initial deposition, order sheet in the said case and deposition of plaintiff in the said case.

5. Trial Court settled the following issues:

(1) "Is the suit maintainable?

(2) Has the Court jurisdiction to try the suit?

(3) Is the service of notice u/s 80, C.P.C. legal &

(4) Whether the gold seized are ornaments?

(5) Has the provisions of Gold Control been violated?

(6) Are the seized gold, the Stridhan and personal property of the plaintiff?

(7) To what relief, if any the plaintiff is entitled?

6. Trial Court on assessment of evidence held that gold bangles seized do not belong to plaintiff, they are not ornaments as defined in the Act and the suit at the instance of the plaintiff is maintainable.

7. Mr. Ashok Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that proceeding for confiscation on consequent confiscation of gold is contrary to the provision of the Act and accordingly, the gold seized being ornaments is liable to be returned to the plaintiff who is the owner of the seized articles.

8. Relying upon the findings of the authorities under the Act in Ext. 2 and D as well as the findings of the Trial Court. Mr. A.B. Mishra, learned Senior Standing Counsel of Central Government submitted that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 84 of the Act.

9. The Act is a self-contained legislation. Exhaustive provisions have been made under the Act with regard to presumptive evidence, procedure for confiscation proceeding, right of appeal and further scope to challenge orders in proceedings up to Supreme Court. Even if there would not have been any provision like Section 84 giving finality to decisions and bar to challenge, there being exhaustive provisi