Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Gold (Control) Act, 1968

20 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SUSHILA N. RUNGTA (D) LRS.versusTHE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-16(2) AND ORS.

2018 INSC 102030 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners challenged a show‑cause notice issued under the Gold Control Rules, arguing that it should not survive the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 by the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990. The central issue was whether a repeal simpliciter without an explicit saving clause automatically invokes Section 6 o

SUSHIL KUMAR PORWAL AND ORS.versusVIPIN MANEKLAL AND ORS.

1987 INSC 23027 August 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the seizure of primary gold stored by the widow Ratanbai, who claimed it belonged to her late husband Kesharimal Porwal, while the true owners were his grandsons under a will. The Central Excise authorities confiscated the gold and imposed a penalty on Ratanbai for violating the Gold Control Ordinan

STATE OF GUJARATversusMOHANLAL JITAMALJI PORWAL & ANR.

1987 INSC 8226 March 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a railway passenger, was found wearing a waist‑chain of 820 g that was pure gold coated with mercury to appear silver. A customs officer seized the chain and the respondent was charged under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962. The trial court acquitted him, holding the chain was mere

GUNWANTLAL GODAWATversusUNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

2017 INSC 113022 November 2017

In 1965 gold worth 240 kg was seized from the appellant's father's house under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and confiscation proceedings were initiated. The Rules were later repealed by the Gold Control Ordinance, 1968, which was subsequently repealed by the Gold Control Act, 1968, creating a statutory fiction that

UNION OF INDIAversusANNAM RAMALINGAM ETC. ETC.

1985 INSC 3021 February 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed against the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision striking down Section 28 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power. Section 28 prohibits a licensed gold dealer from carrying on money‑lending or banking business on the security of any article or

HARI PRASAD CHHAPOLIA (DEAD)versusUNION OF INDIA

2008 INSC 76220 June 2008Disposed off

Hari Prasad Chhapolia was convicted under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968; the High Court set aside the Customs conviction but upheld the Gold conviction. He appealed to the Supreme Court under special leave, but died while the appeal was pending. His legal heirs filed an application for substitu

COSTAO FERNANDESversusSTATE AT THE INSTANCE OF D.S.P, CBI, BOMBAY

1996 INSC 28820 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Costao Fernandes, a customs preventive officer, chased a vehicle suspected of smuggling gold and, during a scuffle, the driver died. He was prosecuted under Section 302 IPC, while claiming immunity under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962. The trial court and High Court denied the protection, alleging lack of prior i

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTAversusBERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.

1990 INSC 9119 March 1990Disposed off

The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) against an order of the Divisional Assistant Commissioner, relying on a general authority dated 24 September 1986 and a note‑sheet order of the Collector. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal,

BHANA KHALPA BHAI PATELversusASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BULSAR, GUJARAT AND ANR.

1997 INSC 73418 November 1997Dismissed

The appellant, Bhana Khalpa Bhoi Patel, was charged under Sections 135(1-A) and 135(1-B) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 25 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 for involvement in the smuggling of contraband gold. The prosecution relied on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act from several co‑accused a

MANICK CHAND PAUL & OTHERS ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1984 INSC 8217 April 1984Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined writ petitions filed by licensed gold dealers challenging several provisions of the Gold Control Act, 1968 (as amended) and its associated rules on the grounds that they violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301 and 302 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that sections 16(7), 52, 79 (and it

HARBANS LALversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CHANDIGARH

1993 INSC 23014 July 1993Dismissed

Harbans Lal was arrested in March 1970 and a large quantity of gold and currency was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Collector extended the six‑month seizure period by another six months through an ex‑parte order without giving the appellant notice or a hearing, and later issued a show‑cause noti

UNION OF INDIAversusR. PADMANABHAN

2003 INSC 38713 August 2003Case Partly allowed

The Union of India issued a 1985 Reward Scheme for informers and government servants involved in seizures under the Customs, Central Excise & Salt, Gold Control and Foreign Exchange Regulation Acts, later amended in 1989 to cap rewards at Rs 1 lakh per seizure and Rs 10 lakh in a career. IPS officer R. Padmanabhan, who

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUTversusV.P. SAYED MOHAMMED

1983 INSC 112 January 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, V.P. Sayed Mohammed, was seized with 28 gold bars at Trichur railway station and charged under s.135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with s.85(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Evidence included the inspector’s seizure report, a ticket collector’s testimony, a goldsmith’s certification that the bars

THANESAR SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 9979 November 2023Dismissed

The appellants challenged the forfeiture of their properties under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), arguing that the detention order against them under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) had been re

V.K. AGARWAL, ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMSversusVASANTRAJ BHAGWANJI BHATIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 997 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The State prosecuted Vasantraj Bhagwanji Bhatia and others for possession of primary gold under the Customs Act, 1969 (Sec. 111 read with Sec. 135); one respondent was convicted and two were acquitted. The same authorities later sought to prosecute the three respondents under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (Sec. 85) for

GOPALDAS UDHAVDAS AHUJA AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 3936 July 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Gopaldas Udhavdas Ahuja and his widow, were found to possess primary gold that had been seized by Income‑Tax authorities in August 1974 and subsequently taken over by a Gold Control Officer under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. They claimed they were unaware of the gold hidden in a secret compartment and

SHAH GUMMAN MALversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1980 INSC 206 February 1980

Gumman Mal was found to be in possession of 28 gold biscuits with foreign markings hidden in a secret chamber of his safe. He admitted that the gold was brought from outside the country by an unknown person and that he held no permit under the Reserve Bank of India or the Gold Control Administrator. He was convicted un

K.I. PAVUNNYversusASSISTANT COLLECTOR (HEAD QUARTER), CENTRAL EXCISE COLLECTORATE, COCHIN

1997 INSC 843 February 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was found with 200 gold biscuits concealed in his house and gave a written confession to Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which he later retracted. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether such a statement, recorded before the appellant became an accused, was admissible under S

C.D. GEORGEversusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHUR

1990 INSC 742 March 1990Appeal(s) allowed

C.D. George, a licensed gold dealer, kept his showroom on the ground floor of a four‑storeyed building but stored gold ornaments on the third floor. He was charged under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 for failing to maintain accounts (Sec. 55(3)) and for allegedly carrying on business in premises other than those specifi

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search