LexBADRI PRASAD AND ORS. ETC. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B ·C D E F G H BADIU PRASAD AND ORS. ETC. v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS. ETC. March 30, 1971 [S. M. Snau, c. I .• G. K. MrrrER, K. s. IIEGDE, A. N. GllOVER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] Gold Control Act, 1969, ss. 4, 6, 8(1) and 16, 58, 71-Vires of-Provi· sions of ss. 4, 6, 8 and 16 of Act do not constitute unreasonable restrictions on right to carry on business and are not violative of Arts. 19 (/} and (g}- Section 71 is ultra vires-Sections 6 and 16(1) do not encroach on field covered by Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Ar.a) Pawn Brokers Act 23 of 1948 and Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act 5 of 1349F. The petitioners and appellants carried on the business of Pawn brok• ing and money lending inter alia on the security of gold articles and orna· ments. They challenged the validity of different provisions o! the Gold Control Act, 1969. The contentions that fell for consideration were: (i) whether there was anything in the Act or the rules which constituted an unrea~onable restriction on the part of a pawn broker to bold, acquire or dispose of property or carry on his business of money lending within the meaning of Art 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution not saved by sub-els. (5) and (6) thereof; (ii) whether in the absence of a provision for notice to be given to him in case of any proceeding for confiscation the pawnee may be prejudicially affected without a hearing being given to him; (iii) whether s. 71 of the Act was ultra vires: (iv) whether the failure to make a distinc- tion between 'article' and 'ornament' in the definition section was prejudi- cial to a dealer; (v) whether compliance with all the conditions laid down in form GS Ill under r. 4 of the Act may be impossible in a number of cases; (vi) whether it was difficult to comply with s. 16 of the Act as r:- gards acquisition or transfer of gold as and when made, (vii) whether a pawn-broker or money lender was entitled to hold primary gold; (vili) whether certain government circulars had the effect of extending time for filing of declaration under s. 16(1) beyond 28th February 1969; (ix) whether s. 58(1) of the Act was violative of the Constitution and liable to be struck down; (x) whether s. 16 (I) of the Act being a general provision could not apply to pawn-brokers and money lenders who were governed by ss. 6, 10, 28; (xi) whether •· 16(1) was unreasonable as regards pawn brokers; (xii) whether the impugned Act encroached upon the field exclusively oc- cupied by Andhra Pradesh Act XXIII of 1943 and Andhra Pradesh Act V of 1349F. HELD: (i) If smuggling of gold into the country is to be checked by the prevention of the conversion of smuggled gold into gold articles 01 ornaments, there is no unreasonableness in the State calling upon all pawn brokers and persons who take pledges or hypothecation of ornaments to furnish declarations so that the Administrator and the Gold Control Offi- cer may keep an eye on the activities of such perwns and if necessary at any point of time, ask for a return in terms of s. 6 and satisfy himself about the legality of his acts by inspecting his accounts. It would not be difficult for anybody carrying on or wanting to carry on business lawfully to in- sist on the pawnor producing the copy of the declaration in his possession given to him after authentication by the Gold Control Officer in terms of BADlll PaAl.\D r. COUl!CroR (JIUter,J.) us 1ub-s. (8) of s. 16 in order to satisfy himself that there was no colllraven· A tion of the Act. The requirement of maldna a declaration as often u a pwan broker acquires ownership possession, custody or control <>f aold under &ub-s. (4) is to be read with sub·s. (10) and it is enouah for a pawn broker to approach the Gold Control Officer with the full and detailed statements of bis holding once a month. [2690-E, G] As such it cannot be said that there is any unreasonable restriction in 'B the said provisions on holding property or pursuing one's business in terms of Art. 19(1) (f) or (g) of the Constitution. [269H] (ii) The contention that there being no provision for notice to be given to him in case of any proceeding for confiscation the pawnec may be prejudicially affected without a hcarina being given to him bad no sub- stance inasmuch as he will be the person presumed to be the owner in terms of s. 99 and the gold can only be seized from his possession or C custody. He can appear before the authorities an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.