http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: SUSHIL KUMAR PORWAL AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VIPIN MANEKLAL AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/08/1987

BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1987 AIR 2167            1987 SCR  (3)1116  1987 SCC  (4) 276        JT 1987 (3)   448  1987 SCALE  (2)488

ACT:     Gold Control Act, 1968--proviso to section 71--interpre- tation of--Whether it covers primary gold.

HEADNOTE:     One Kesharimal Porwal, who had one of his businesses  as gold and silver shop, died on October 7, 1952 leaving behind surviving  a widow Ratanbai, a daughter Shantabai and a  son Nem Kumar. Kesharimal left a will whereby he bequeathed gold and  silver.to  his  grandsons--sons of  Shantabai  and  Nem Kumar--providing that each grandson would receive 500  tolas of gold at the time of marriage and the remaining gold would be equally divided among them. The genuineness and  validity of the will were not challenged at any stage.     On  July  9, 1968, the officers of the  Central  Excise, Nagpur,  searched the residential premises of Nem Kumar  and seized  10  slabs and 9 pieces of gold and  230  gold  coins having at that time a market value of Rs.7,63,000. The  gold seized was primary gold. The officials of the Central Excise separately  recorded  the  statements of  Ratanbai  and  Nem Kumar.  Ratanbai stated that the seized gold was the  ’self- earned  property’ of her late husband, and had been kept  in the  iron-safe  about 8/9 years ago, and that  keys  of  the shelf had all along remained in her possession. Nem Kumar in his statement denied any knowledge of the gold and said that he  had  come to know of the existence of the gold  for  the first  time during the search. A declaration in  respect  of the  seized  gold  was filed by Ratanbai  with  the  Central Excise. The  Collector of Central Excise served separate notices  on Ratanbai and Nem Kumar, calling upon them to show cause  why the  seized  gold should not be confiscated  and  a  penalty imposed for violation of the provision of paragraph  9(1)(i) of  the Gold Control Ordinance, 1968. The notices  were  re- plied by both. The Collector came to the finding that Ratan- bai  had  full knowledge of the gold and  was  in  conscious possession  of it for at least 8/9 years. As for Nem  Kumar, the  Collector  held that it was difficult  to  sustain  the charge  of possession and custody of the gold  against  him. Accordingly,  the  Collector, held that  only  Ratanbai  had violated the provision of paragraph 9(1)(i) of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

         1117 Gold Control Ordinance, 1968, and directed the  confiscation of  the  gold and imposition of a penalty  of  Rs.38,000  on Ratanbai  under paragraph 75 of the Gold Control  Ordinance, 1968, which was replaced by the Gold Control Act, 1968.  Nem Kumar was acquitted.     An appeal preferred by Ratanbai against the order of the Collector was dismissed by the Administrator under the  Gold Control Act, Ratanbai then filed an application for revision before the Central Government, challenging the order of  the Administrator. The appellant No. 1, Sushil Kumar son of  Nem Kumar,  who  had  by then attained majority,  also  filed  a revisional  application before the Central Government.  Both the  revisional applications were dismissed. Thereupon,  the appellants  Nos. 1 to 5 and Surendra Kumar  since  deceased, son  of Shantabai, filed a writ petition in the High  Court. The High Court (Single Judge) quashed the order of confisca- tion and penalty and directed the return of the gold to  the petitioners.     The  respondents  preferred an appeal  to  the  Division Bench  of the High Court. The Division Bench did  not  agree with  the  interpretation  of the learned  Single  Judge  on section 71(1) of the Gold Control Act, including the proviso thereto,  and  set aside the judgment of the  Single  Judge. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the  appellants moved this court for relief by special leave. Allowing the appeal, the Court,     HELD:  The ground that weighed with the  Central  Excise Authorities  in confiscating the gold was that the  acquisi- tion,  possession,  custody or control of  primary  gold  in question by Ratanbai became illegal and liable to  confisca- tion,  as she had not filed any declaration  required  under rule 126-1 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, nor had  she disposed  of  the gold by sale or converted  the  gold  into ornaments in contravention of clause (i) of sub-rule  (I-B), but had possessed the same in violation of sub-rule (I-A) of Rule 126-H of the Defence of India (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1966. But, after the amendment of section 71(1) of the  Gold Control Act, 1968, by addition of a proviso, the  appellants placed reliance upon the proviso. It was contended on behalf of  the appellants that Ratanbai by her omission to  dispose of the gold by sale or to convert the same into ornaments in accordance  with the provision of rule 126-H, as amended  by the Defence of India (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1966 rendered the  gold  liable to confiscation without the  knowledge  or connivance of the owners of the gold, namely, the  grandsons of Kesharimal Porwal, but the same could not be 1118 confiscated  in view of the proviso to section 71(1) of  the Gold Control Act. The Learned Single Judge of the High Court had  upheld the contention and directed the release  of  the gold in favour of the appellants. [1122F-H; 1123G-H]     The  principal question that fell for the  consideration of this Court was whether the proviso to section 71(1)  also related to primary gold. [1124D]     Power of confiscation of gold including primary gold  is conferred  by sub-section (1) of section 71. The  expression "any  gold" refers to all kinds of gold,  including  primary gold.  In view of section 8(1) of the Gold Control  Act,  no person can acquire or retain possession, custody or  control of primary gold. Under clause (i) of sub-rule (I-B) of  rule 126-H  of  the Defence of India  (Fourth  Amendment)  Rules, 1966, the owner in possession, custody or control of primary gold is bound to either sell such primary gold to a licensed refiner  or  dealer  or deliver the same to  a  licensed  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

certified  dealer or goldsmith for conversion  thereof  into ornaments  within a period of six months from  September  1, 1967,  the date of the Commencement of the said Rules,  Sub- rule  (1-A) of Rule 126-H prohibits the possession,  custody or control of any primary gold after the expiry of the  said period of six months. [1124D-E; 1125B-C]     In  this case, it was Ratanbai who had failed to  either sell or convert the primary gold within the grace period  of six  months  without  the knowledge and  connivance  of  the owners thereof, that is, the grandsons of Kesharimal Porwal. If the contention of the respondents was accepted, it  would mean that the owner of the primary gold had to lose the same on account of default committed by somebody who was not  the owner.  It was also difficult to accept the contention  that while  the substantive provision of sub-section (1) of  sec- tion  71  related to all kinds of  gold,  including  primary gold,  the  proviso, a part of  the  substantive  provision, would  not include primary gold within its scope and  ambit. The proviso lays down the circumstances under which any gold which  is  liable to confiscation will not  be  confiscated. Where  primary gold is not to be confiscated in view of  the proviso  to section 71(1), the owner thereof gets  it  back, but  it  does not mean that he will be  entitled  to  retain possession  of such primary gold which is forbidden by  sec- tion  8(1) of the Gold Control Act. Thus there would  be  no difficulty  in not confiscating the primary gold  under  the proviso,  for  after such release the owner of  the  primary gold  will  have to dispose it of or convert the  same  into ornaments.  The Court did not agree with the view  expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court that the proviso  to section 71(1) of the           1119 Gold Control Act did not relate to primary Gold. The  inter- pretation  put on section 71 (1) by the Court would not  run counter  to  the provision of section 8(1)  as  the  primary gold, not confiscated, would not be allowed to be  possessed by  the owner but had to be disposed of by him or  converted into ornaments in the manner mentioned above or as  directed by  order date 30.7.76 of the Administrator under  the  Gold Control Act. [1125D-G; 1127A-B]     The Court set aside the order of the Division Bench  and modified  the order of the Single Judge of the  High  Court, directing that the seized primary gold should be released in favour  of  the appellants and the appellants  would  either sell  the  same to a licensed dealer or  deliver  possession thereof  to a licensed dealer or a certified  goldsmith,  as might be specified by the Administrator, immediately on  the release of such primary gold. [1127C]     Badri  Prasad  v. Collector of  Central  Excise,  [1971] Supp. S.C.R. 254, referred to.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5807  of 1983.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  10.12.1982  of  the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 28 of 1982.     Soli  J. Sorabjee, Harish N. Salve, P.H. Parekh and  Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud for the Appellants.     Govind  Das, Girish Chandra and C.V. Subba Rao  for  the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     DUTT, J. This appeal by special leave involves an inter- pretation  of the proviso to section 71 of the Gold  Control

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

Act. 1968.     One Kesharimal Porwal, who had two flourishing business- es--a bidi factory at Kamptee and a gold and silver shop  at Mandsaur--died on October 7, 1952 leaving behind him surviv- ing  a  widow Ratanbai, a daughter Shantabai and a  son  Nem Kumar.  Both Shantabai and Nem Kumar had each a son  at  the time of death of Kesharimal. After the death of  Kesharimal, Nem Kumar had four more sons. 1120     The said Kesharimal also left a will dated February  10, 1952  whereby he bequeathed certain gold and silver  to  his grandsons.  It was provided in the will that  each  grandson would receive 500 tolas of gold at the time of marriage  and the  remaining gold would be equally divided among them.  It may  be  stated here that at no stage  the  genuineness  and validity  of  the will was questioned, nor  have  they  been challenged before us.     On  July,  9, 1968 the officers of the  Central  Excise, Nagpur,  searched the residential premises of Nem Kumar  and seized  10  slabs and 9 pieces of gold and 230  gold  coins, weighing  about  42,404 grams having at that time  a  market value of Rs.7,63,000, which were kept in a cupboard inside a big  Godrej  iron-safe. It is not disputed that  the  seized gold was primary gold.     On  July 10, 1968, the officials of the  Central  Excise separately  recorded  the  statements of  Ratanbai  and  Nem Kumar.  It was stated by Ratanbai that the seized  gold  was the ’self-earned property’ of her late husband, and that the same had been kept in the iron-safe about 8/9 years ago. She admitted  that the keys of the shelf had all along  remained in  her  possession. Nem Kumar in his statement  denied  any knowledge  about the gold. He said that he had come to  know of the existence of the gold for the first time when it  was found  out  during the search. A declaration in  respect  of seized  gold  was filed by Ratanbai to the  Central  Excise, Nagpur, on July 29, 1968.     The  Collector  of Central Excise,  Nagpur,  served  two separate notices on Ratanbai and Nem Kumar calling upon them to show cause why the seized gold should not be  confiscated and a penalty imposed for the violation of the provision  of paragraph 9(1)(i) of the Gold Control Ordinance, 1968.  Both Ratanbai  and  Nem Kumar showed cause against  the  proposed confiscation and penalty.     The  Collector  came to the findings that  Ratanbai  had full  knowledge of the gold and was in conscious  possession of  it for at least 8 9 years. So far as Nem Kumar was  con- cerned, the Collector held that it was difficult to  sustain the  charge of possession, custody and control of  the  gold against  him  in view of the vagueness of the  evidence  and lacunae  in investigation. Accordingly, by his  order  dated May  15, 1970, the Collector came to the conclusion that  it was  only Ratanbai who had violated the provision  of  para- graph  9(1)(i) of the Gold Control Ordinance, 1968  and  di- rected confiscation of the gold and imposition of penalty of Rs.38,000 on Ratanbai under paragraph 75 of the      1121 Gold Control Ordinance, 1968. Nem Kumar was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The Ordinance was replaced  by the GoAd Control Act, 1968.     Being  aggrieved  by the said order  of  the  Collector. Ratanbai preferred an appeal against the same to the  Admin- istrator  under the Gold Control Act, 1968. The  Administra- tor, however, dismissed the appeal by his order dated Febru- ary 23, 1972.     Ratanbai  filed an application for revision  before  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

Central Government challenging the propriety of the order of the Administrator. The appellant No. 1 Sushil Kumar, son  of Nem  Kumar, who had by now attained majority, also  filed  a revisional  application before the Central Government.  Both the  revisional applications were dismissed by  the  Central Government.     Thereafter,  the  appellants Nos. 1 to  5  and  Surendra Kumar, since deceased, son of Shantabai, filed a writ  peti- tion  in the Delhi High Court. The learned Single  Judge  of the Delhi High Court, on an interpretation of section  71(1) of the Gold Control Act including the proviso thereto,  took the  view  that the seized gold could not be ordered  to  be confiscated and no penalty could be imposed on Ratanbai.  In that view of the matter, the learned Judge quashed the order of confiscation and penalty and directed the return of  gold to the petitioners.     The  respondents  could not accept the decision  of  the learned  Judge and accordingly, preferred an appeal  to  the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench did not agree  with the interpretation of the learned Judge on  sec- tion  71(1)  of the Gold Control Act including  the  proviso thereto. We shall have occasion to refer to the  interpreta- tion  put forward on section 71(1) by the Division Bench  of the  High Court and it is sufficient to state here that  the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned  Single Judge and allowed the appeal of the respondents. Hence  this appeal by special leave by the sons of Nem Kumar,  Shantabai and Nem Kumar himself.     Under  rule  126-I of the Defence of India  Rules  1962, every  person  other than a dealer was required  to  make  a declaration  as to the quantity, description and other  pre- scribed particulars of gold (other than ornaments) owned  by him  within  thirty days from January 9, 1963, the  date  on which the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963 came into force. Rule 126-H was amended by the Defence of 1122 India  (Fourth  Amendment) Rules, 1966. Sub-rules  (1-A)  to (I-G)  were added to rule 126-H. Sub-rule (1-A) provided  as follows:               "(1-A)--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."                   Clause  (i)  of sub-rule (1-B),  which  is               also  important  for  our  purpose,  reads  as               follows:-               "(1-B)--Every  person who owns or has  in  his               possession,  custody  or control at  the  com-               mencement  of  the Defence  of  India  (Fourth               Amendment) Rules, 1966, any primary gold which               has been included in a declaration or  further               declaration made under rule 126-1 (as in force               immediately  before  the commencement  of  the               said  Rules)  or in respect of which  no  such               declaration is required to be made under  that               rule,  shall dispose of such primary  gold  in               the following manner, namely:                     (i)  If he, being the owner, is in  pos-               session,  custody or control thereof  at  such               commencement, he shall, within a period of six               months  from  such commencement,  either  sell               such  primary  gold  to a  refiner  or  dealer

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

             licensed  under this Part or deliver the  same               to  a dealer or goldsmith licensed  or  certi-               fied, as the case may be, under this Part  for               conversion thereof into ornaments ;"     The ground that weighed with the Central Excise Authori- ties  in  confiscating the gold was  that  the  acquisition, possession,  custody or control of primary gold in  question by  Ratanbai  became illegal and contraband  and  liable  to confiscation,  as she did not file any declaration  required under rule 126-I of the Defence of India Rules, 1962  within thirty days from January 9, 1963 nor did she dispose of  the gold by sale nor convert the same into ornaments in  contra- vention  of clause (i) of sub-rule (1-B), but possessed  the same  in  violation of sub-rule (1-A) of rule 126-H  of  the Defence of India (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1966. But,  after the amendment of section 71(1) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 by  the  addition of a proviso, the appellants  have  placed reliance upon the proviso. 1123 Initially section 71(1) was as follows:-               "71(1)--Any  gold  in  respect  of  which  any               provision  of  this Act or any rule  or  order               made  thereunder has been, or is being, or  is               attempted to be, contravened, shall be  liable               to confiscation."     This  Court  in  Badri Prasad v.  Collector  of  Central Excise, [1971] Supp. SCR 254 held that section 71 placed  an unreasonable  restriction  on the right of a person  to  ac- quire, hold and dispose of gold articles or gold  ornaments. In  that view of the matter, this Court struck down  section 71 as unconstitutional. Thereafter, by Gold (Control) Amend- ment Act, 197 1, a new section 71(1) was enacted with retro- spective  effect from 1-9-1968. Sub-section (1)  of  section 71, with which we are concerned, is as follows:-               "Sec. 71(1)--Any gold in respect of which  any               provision  of  this Act or any rule  or  order               made  thereunder has been, or is being, or  is               attempted  to be, contravened,  together  with               any  package, covering or receptacle in  which               such gold is found, shall be liable to confis-               cation:                         Provided  that  where it  is  estab-               lished  to  the satisfaction  of  the  officer               adjudging  the confiscation that such gold  or               other thing belongs to a person other than the               person  who has, by any act or omission,  ren-               dered it liable to confiscation, and such  act               or  omission  was  without  the  knowledge  or               connivance  of the person to whom it  belongs,               it shall not be ordered to be confiscated  but               such  other action, as is authorized  by  this               Act, may be taken against the person who  has,               by such act or omission, rendered it liable to               confiscation."     It is contended on behalf of the appellants that  Ratan- bai  by  her omission to dispose of the gold by sale  or  to convert  the  same  into ornaments in  accordance  with  the provision of rule 126-H, as amended by the Defence of  India (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1966, rendered the gold liable  to confiscation  without  the knowledge or  connivance  of  the owners thereof, namely, the grandsons of Kesharimal  Porwal, the  same  cannot be confiscated in view of the  proviso  to section  71(1) of the Gold Control Act. The  learned  Single Judge  of the High Court upheld the contention and  directed the release of the gold in favour of the appellants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

1124     On the other hand, the Division Bench of the High  Court took a contrary view. According to the learned Judges of the Division Bench, the proviso will apply only to such gold the possession of which can be retained. As the gold in question was  not  converted or sold within the grace period  of  six months  from March 1, 1967, such gold became contraband  and the  possession thereof by Ratanbai was  illegal.  Moreover, under section 8(1) of the Gold Control Act, 1968, no  person can own, acquire or possess primary gold. In the view of the Division  Bench, confiscation of primary gold  is  mandatory under section 8(1) of the Gold Control Act and earlier under the Defence of India Rules. According to the Division Bench, the proviso cannot be so construed as to permit primary gold to be retained by prohibiting an order of confiscation  from being  passed.  The Division Bench held that  possession  of primary gold could never be legalised.     The principal question that falls for our  consideration is  whether  the proviso to section 71(1)  also  relates  to primary gold. It is not disputed that the power of confisca- tion  of  gold including primary gold is conferred  by  sub- section (1) of section 71. The expression "any gold"  refers to all kinds of gold including primary gold. Indeed, section 2(j)  defines  "gold" as meaning gold, including  its  alloy (whether virgin, melted or re-melted, wrought or  unwrought) in  any  shape or form, of a purity of not  less  than  nine carats and includes primary gold, article and ornament.     We may now consider the contention made on behalf of the respondents  that  the proviso does not  relate  to  primary gold. The reason for this contention is that as, in view  of section  8(1)  of the Gold Control Act,  nobody  can  retain possession  of  primary gold, the proviso cannot  relate  to primary gold, for, if the conditions mentioned in the provi- so  are fulfilled, the gold shall not be ordered to be  con- fiscated.  In other words, the gold would be allowed  to  be retained  by  the owner thereof. It is submitted  that  such interpretation  would render section 8(1) nugatory.  Section 8(1) is in the following terms:-               "Sec. 8(1). Save as otherwise provided in this               Act, no person shall--                        (i)  own or have in  his  possession,               custody or control, or                        (ii) acquire or agree to acquire  the               ownership, possession, custody or control  of,               or                     1125                       (iii) buy, accept or otherwise receive               or agree to buy, accept or otherwise receive,               any primary gold."     There  can be no doubt that in view of section 8(1),  no person  can  own, acquire or retain possession,  custody  or control  or primary gold. It has already been  noticed  that under  clause  (i) of sub-rule (1-B) of rule  126-H  of  the Defence  of  India (Fourth Amendment) Rules,  1966,  it  was enjoined that the owner in possession, custody or control of primary gold was bound to either sell such primary gold to a licensed refiner or dealer or deliver the same to a licensed or certified dealer or goldsmith for conversion thereof into ornaments  within a period of six months from  September  1, 1967,  the date of commencement of the said Rules.  Sub-rule (1-A) of rule 126-H prohibits possession, custody or control of  any primary gold after the expiry of the said period  of six months.     In  the instant case, it was Ratanbai who had failed  to either  sell or convert the primary gold in question  within

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

the  grace  period of six months without the  knowledge  and connivance  of  owners thereof, that is,  the  grandsons  of Kesharimal Porwal.     If  the  contention of the respondents is  accepted,  it will  mean  that the owner of primary gold has to  lose  the same on account of default committed by somebody who is  not the  owner.  It was perhaps one of the  considerations  that weighed  with  this Court in Badri  Prasad’s  case  (supra), namely,  that  the  pawnee who is the owner  has  to  suffer confiscation  or to pay a fine in lieu of  confiscation  not exceeding  twice the value as provided in section 73 of  the Gold  Control Act before the same was amended, not  for  any fault  of  his, but for the omission of the pawn  broker  to file  declarations  or  monthly statements  and  this  Court struck down the unamended provision of section 71 as  uncon- stitutional.  Therefore,  in interpreting the  provision  of section  71(1) including the proviso thereto, we shall  have to keep in view the above decision of this Court. It is with a view to removing the unconstitutionality of the  unamended provision  of  section 71 that section 71(1)  has  been  re- enacted  with a proviso added to sub-section (1) of  section 71. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that the  proviso  does not relate to primary gold but  to  other kinds of gold.     It is also difficult to accept the contention that while the  substantive provision of sub-section (1) of section  71 relates to all kinds of gold 1126 including  primary gold, the proviso which is a part of  the substantive provision, will not include within its scope and ambit  primary  gold.  It is true that  under  section  8(1) of.the Gold Control Act, retention of possession of primary- gold  is  prohibited. But because of that, it  will  not  be reasonable and justified to ignore the plain meaning of  the proviso and to interpret it in such a manner as to render it inconsistent with the substantive part of sub-section (1) of section 71.     The proviso lays down the circumstances under which  any gold which is liable to confiscation will not be  confiscat- ed.  Confiscation deprives the owner of his property to  his loss and detriment. Where primary gold is not to be  confis- cated  in  view of the proviso to section 71(1),  the  owner thereof  gets it back, but it does not mean that he will  be entitled to retain possession of such primary gold which  is forbidden by section 8(1) of the Gold Control Act. In such a case,  the owner has to sell the primary gold to a  licensed refiner  or dealer or deliver the same to a dealer or  gold- smith, licensed or certified, as the case may be, that is to say, in the same manner and following the same procedure  as was laid down in sub-rule (1-B) of rule 126-H of the Defence of India (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1966 and, in our opinion, so interpreted there will be no conflict between the proviso to  section 71(1) and the provision of section 8(1)  of  the Gold  Control Act. Indeed, the Administrator under the  Gold Control  Act  has issued an order No. 11/76 F.  13  1/41/75- GC.II  dated 30-7-1976 whereby it is directed,  inter  alia, that  where  gold is seized and confiscated  and  thereafter released and if such release relates to primary gold, it  is further  directed: (a) such primary gold shall be sold to  a licensed  dealer  or got converted into ornaments;  (b)  the person concerned shall, within one month of taking back into his  possession,  custody or control of such  primary  gold, furnish to the concerned Gold Control Officer a  certificate from  the  licensed dealer that such primary gold  has  been sold  to him and where such primary gold has been  converted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

into  ornaments, a certificate from the licensed  dealer  or the  certified  goldsmith,  as the case may  be,  that  such primary gold has been so converted.     Thus,  there will be no difficulty in  not  confiscating the  primary gold under the proviso, for after such  release the  owner  of primary gold will not be entitled  to  retain possession  of the same, but will have to dispose it  of  or convert the same into ornaments. We do not, therefore, agree with  the view expressed by the Division Bench of  the  High Court that the proviso to section 71(1) of the Gold  Control Act does not relate to primary gold. The Division Bench  was greatly influenced by the fact that in view of section  8(1) of  the  Gold Control Act, the possession  of  primary  gold cannot be retained by any person. But, as 1127 already  discussed  above,  such an  interpretation  is  not possible  to  be made of the proviso to section  71(1).  The interpretation  that we have put on section 71(1)  will  not run counter to the provision of section 8(1), in view of the fact  that although the primary gold is not confiscated,  it will not be allowed to be possessed by the owner, but has to be  disposed  of by him or converted into ornaments  in  the manner as mentioned above or as directed by the  Administra- tor by his said order dated 30-7-1976.     For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the order of the Division  Bench and modify the order of the  learned  Single Judge  of the High Court directing that the  seized  primary gold  shall be released in favour of the appellants  with  a further direction that the appellants shall either sell  the same to a licensed dealer or deliver possession of the  same to  a  licensed dealer or a certified goldsmith, as  may  be specified  by the Administrator, immediately on the  release of such primary gold.     The appeal is allowed, but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as  to costs. S.L.                                                  Appeal allowed. 1128