Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2021 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 417 - HC - CustomsSmuggling - 2 gold biscuits - 1 cut piece of gold biscuit - 7 pieces of primary gold - 3 pieces of gold bangles - 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 - HELD THAT:- The conviction itself would be erroneous if the gold did not belong to them, obviously the judgments of the learned trial court and appellate court passed in the year 1980 not having ever been subject matter of any further proceedings, with the conviction of petitioner no. 1 therefore having attained finality, now in these proceedings by which effectively the petitioners seek the return of the gold confiscated, they obviously cannot now at this stage turn around and say that the conviction was erroneous. The Gold (Control) Act, 1968, having been repealed in the year 1990, no saving clause/substantive provision has been pointed out from the Repealing Act by which any gold confiscated during the validity of the said Act (between 1968 and 1990) should be returned to the person from whom it was seized/recovered. In the present case, nothing actually remained sub-judice after the judgment of the appellate court affirming the conviction of petitioner no. 1 under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, as also the Customs Act, 1962 and upholding the order of confiscation of the gold recovered from him - If, therefore, this court were to interpret that because of the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, all proceedings taken thereunder as had already become final prior to its repealment in 1990, it would amount to directing that all action taken during the 22 years of the operation of that Act, would be null and void and therefore any penalty etc. imposed and all gold recovered during such period would be liable to be returned to the persons from whom it was confiscated. There being no savings clause or any substantive provision in the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990, to the effect that all action taken during the validity of the said Act would stand reversed, or that the gold seized during the validity of the Act be returned to the person from which it was seized, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners in that regard cannot be accepted at all. In any case, with that provision not having been repealed and this court already having held hereinabove that even the proceedings under the Act of 1968 already having become final in the year 1980, the repealment of that Act in 1990 cannot come to the aid of the petitioner - Petition dismissed.
|