Gulati, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are the partners of a firm styled as M/s. Brij Kishan Lal. The firm carried on business in Sharafa at Moradabad. On July 1, 1964, the Customs Authorities carried out a search of business premises of the firm and seized three biscuit tins containing gold ornaments. The petitioner's contention is that these gold ornaments were pawned by certain persons with the petitioner No. 1 Mahesh Nandan in his personal capacity and they were seized when he was taking them to Punjab National Bank to keep them in a locker. On November 27, 1974, fourteen notices dated November 21, 1974 were issued by the respondent No. 2, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Rampur to the petitioner. By these notices the petitioners were required to show cause against the imposition of penalty for contravention of Rule 126 (C) (1) (a) of the Defence of India Rules for having issued to their workman gold ornaments of more than 14 carat purity. While these proceedings wore still pending, the firm received a notice dated January 12, 1965 which was issued superseding all previous notices requiring the firm to show cause against the imposition of penalty as well as against the confiscation of ornaments. Finally a fresh notice in the same terms dated December 22, 1972 was issued to the firm. By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have challenged these notices.
(2.) THE first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that no notice for the confiscation of the ornaments having been issued within the period of six months from the date of their seizure, confiscation cannot take place. When the seizure took place on July 1, 1964 the Defence of India Rules under which action was taken did not provide for any period for the issuance of a notice for confiscation. As such a notice could be issued at any stage at any time. But the law was changed in 1965 with the promulgation of the Gold Control Act, 1965. Section 30 of the Gold Control Act is relevant and material portion is reproduced below: - "That no order of adjudication of confiscation fine or penalty shall be made unless the owner of the conveyance, animal or gold or other person concerned- (i) Is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscation such conveyance, animal of gold or to impose a penalty; (ii) Is given as opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein; and (iii) Is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter: Provided ............................ Provided also that where no such notice is given within a period of six months of the seizure of the conveyance, animal or gold or such further period as the Collector of Customs or Central Excise may specify such conveyance, animal or gold shall be returned after the expiry of that period to the person from whose possession it was seized." This provision does not provide for a period of limitation for a notice as such but if a notice is not given within a period of six months from the date of the seizure of the gold, the gold has to be returned to the person from whose custody it is seized. In other words, a notice for penalty and confiscation of gold has to be given within six months from the date of the seizure of the gold failing which gold ornaments cannot be confiscated and have to be returned. The question is as to whether proviso to Section 30 quoted above is applicable to the present case- Section 43 provides for repeal and savings. Sub-section (1) says: - (1) As from the commencement of this Act, the provisions of Part XII-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, shall stand repealed and upon such repeal, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 shall apply as if the said Part were a Central Act. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, but without prejudice to the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, anything done or any action taken (including any application made to, or any order made or licence issued by the Gold Board, Administrator or other competent authority) under or in pursuance of the provisions of Part XXIA of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the pro visions, of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the corresponding provision of this Act."
(3.) THE effect of Section 43 is that any action already taken under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 shall be deemed to have been taken under the corresponding provisions of the Gold Control Act of 1965. The implication is that the second proviso to Section 30 quoted above becomes applicable to the proceedings taken under the Defence of India Rules so that if no notice for confiscation has been given within a period of six months from the date of the seizure, the seized gold ornaments have to be returned.;