LexGUNWANTLAL GODAWAT versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 369 GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT v. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER (Civil Appeal Nos. 4711-4712 of201 l) NOVEMBER22,2017 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] Defence of India Rules. 1962 - Part XIIA - rr.126-I.126L(2). A B l 26M - Confiscation of gold -Law applicable to pending adjudgment proceedings in respect of such confiscation- In 1965, C residential premises of appellant:~ father was searched wherein 240kgs gold was found and seized under 1962 Rules-1962 Rules repealed by the 1968 Ordinance which in turn was repealed by Gold Control Act of 1968- However. u/s.116(2) of the Act, by way of fiction, anything done under the 1968 Ordinance or Part XII of the 1962 Ru!es, was deemed to have been done under the said Act- D Collector of Central Excise and Customs ordered confiscation of the entire gold with an option to legal heirs of appellants }ather (dnce dead) to redeem the gold by paying redemption fine of Rs.2.5crores- Appellate Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs.12.5Lacs which was the value of gold at the date of the seizpre E in terms of the Gold Control Act of 1968- High Court, however. held that the case of appellant is goyerned only by the 1962 Rules and not by the Gold Control Act of 1968- Propriety of- Proceedings pending under Part XIJA of the 1962 Rules, if would be deemed to continue under the Gold Controi Act of 1968-:,He?d: A proceeding initiated under the 1962 Rules and.pending as on the date of the F Gold Control Act of 1968 will have to be concluded in accordance . . ., . with the 1962 Rule.~ in view of s.116 of the Gold Control Act of 1968- The fiction created u/s.116 does not deal with the law applicable .to pending proceedings - The purpose' of fiction is not to ·alter the law app/}cab!e._to. the acijudgment proceedings - Thus. the aqjudgment of confiscation of the appellants gold is required to be made only in accordance ,with the 1962 Rules and not the Gold Control Act of 1968 ,.-,Constitution.of India - Art.352 - The Gold (Control)•Ordinance, ;1968":-'S.'117~ Gold Cqntrol Act, 1968 - Gold( Control) Act, ·1965 .-JJefence of India Act (51 .of1962) c- 369 a· H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A ss.1(3) and 48(2)-Defence of India Ordinance (4of1962)-Defence of b1dia Ordinance (6 of 1962). Defence of India Rules, 19112- Rules repealed by 1968 Ordinance- s.117 of the Ordinance providing for the consequences of such repeal declared that s.6, 1897 Act would apply- Effect of B such declaration- Held: Rules remained unaffected in respect of the various legal proceedings referred to in s.6(e) of the 1897 Act, either pending or concluded and other appropriate consequences specified in the Rules would follow - The Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968 - General Clauses Act. 1897 - s.6. C Interpretation of Statutes - Effect of repeal of an Ordinance by an enactment - 1962 Rules repealed by the 1968 Gold Ordinance- Gold Act of 1968 repealed the 1968 Ordinance itself. but did not make a declaration that the 1962 Rules were repealed - Issue as to whether the 1962 Rules stood irrevocably repealed- Held: Efficacy of the provisions of an Ordinance would not in any D way be diminuted or abrogated unless there is a subsequent countervailing legislation - 1968 Ordinance was followed up by a legislative action (Gold Act) which did not disapprove the content of the Ordinance - Thus. the 1962 Rules stood repealed by the Ordinance notwithstanding the fact that the Ordinance itself E came to be repealed subsequently by the Gold Act - Repeal of the 1968 Ordinance does not revive the 1962 Rules - Defence ~f India Rules, 1962 - The Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968 - Gold Control Act,1968 - General Clauses Act, 1897. Words & Phrases - 'Adjudged', 'Confiscation' - Meaning F of. in context of Defence of India Rules, 1962 - Discussed. Defence of India Rules. 1962 - Part XIJA - Scheme of - Discussed. Defence of India Rules, 1962 - r.126M(8)(a) - Redemption fine to he paid in lieu of confiscation of the gold seized under the G Z 962 Rules - Basis for determination of - Plea of appellant that confiscation fine is to he determined with reference to the value of gold on the date of the seizure, in terms of s. 73. Gold Control Act r/ w s.2(v) thereof- Held: Rule 126M(8)(a) does not oblige the officer to determine the amount of fine on the basis of value of the H GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT v. UNION OF INDIA 371 confiscated gold either with refer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.