The main legal point established in the judgment is that the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, did not provide grounds for the return of confiscated gold when the conviction and confiscation orders had attained finality.

JUDGMENT :

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners invoking jurisdiction of this court under the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. thereby seeking quashing of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, on 17.12.2020, dismissing the revision filed before that court by the petitioners herein.

In fact in the petition, though in paragraph 1 the petitioners have sought quashing of the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also (against which the revision before the learned Sessions Judge was filed), seemingly due to a typographical/clerical error, both, in the summary prayer at the beginning of the petition, as also in the prayer clause at the end of it, only the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 17.12.2020 has been impugned.

Further, in the summary prayer clause, it has been stated that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge was one by which the application of the petitioners for release of the gold was dismissed, whereas actually a perusal of that order (copy Annexure P-3), shows that it was in fact the revision filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, dated 19.04.2019, allowing the application of the respondent herein, that was challenged, which revision (filed by the petitioners) was dismissed, vide the said impugned order dated 17.12.2020.

2. Be that as it may, the background of the matter, as culled out from the impugned orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, as also from the application filed by the respondent Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division, Rohtak, before the learned CJM, are that the said application was filed on 27.06.2016, stating therein that a complaint was filed against the present petitioners in the year 1979 under the provisions 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 Rs. 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 imprisonment in case of non-payment thereof, maintained.

Petitioner no. 2, Laxmi Narain is now represented through his legal representative, he having died even at the time that the application was filed before the learned CJM, Rohtak, on 27.06.2016.

The gold was also held to have been rightly confiscated by the complainant Department with the order confiscating the gold upheld, vide the judgment of the learned appellate court dated 18.08.1980 (copy Annexure P-5).

5. Admittedly (even as per learned counsel for the petitioners), no revision or any other proceedings against that judgment and order were filed by even petitioner no. 1, and consequently, the gold remained in the custody of the respondent department since then.

6. In the aforesaid background, an application dated 27.06.2016 was filed by the respondent Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division, Rohtak, before the learned CJM, Rohtak, (copy Annexure P-1), giving therein a short background of the