TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vered to the petitioner because he was not present in his business premises. Attempts were made on the following days also to serve the notice, but he was not coming to the shop. On 6-1-1975 therefore the postal authorities redirected the article to his residence. There also the petitioner was not immediately available, with the result that actual service was effected only on 11-1-1975. 2. The main point raised by the petitioner against the confiscation proceedings that followed is that the notice should have been served on him within six months from the date of seizure, i.e. on or before 5-1-1975. The service in this case was only on 11-1-1975. 3. Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act provides that no order of confiscation shall be ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erpretation likely to defeat the statutory intent cannot be accepted. 6. The position is made clear by Section 113 of the Act which provides that any notice issued under the Act shall be served by tendering it or sending it by read. post to the person concerned. The word used in Section 113 is issue and not give . While Section 79 provides for giving notice, Section 113 provides for the manner of doing it. Issuing notice by sending it by Regd. post is a recognised manner of service. It can therefore easily be inferred that all that Parliament intended was that the appropriate authority should send a notice in writing by read. post before the expiry of the six months period. 7. The purpose behind Section 79 is two-fold. The firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the gold in question belonged to the petitioner s son-in-law and another, the confiscation could not have been ordered. But the language of the proviso to Section 71 is very guarded. It requires that the party should establish to the satisfaction of the adjudicating officer that the conditions prescribed therein were there. What matters is the satisfaction of the adjudicating officer, and the concerned officer in this case was not satisfied. The appellate and the revisional authorities were also not satisfied. It is essentially a question of fact, not ordinarily open for review under Article. 226. 10. No other points are raised. The confiscation order should therefore stand. The O.P. is dismissed without any orders as to costs. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
