KAMALARANI RAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant having failed to get a direction for return of the gold seized by the defendants in exercise of powers under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) ON 4 -2 -1974, defendant No. 2 searched house of the plaintiff in absence of her husband. In spite of plaintiff informing them that there is no other gold except 18 bangles in the Iron safe, they wanted to break open the same for which plaintiff opened the same and brought out the bangles in a cloth bag. Defendant No. 2 demanded to hand over the same to him for seizure but plaintiff refused for which former tried to snatch away the same. In hope of avoiding the seizure, she threw the gold ornaments with bag inside the well in compound of the house plaintiff's husband arrived at that time and explained to defendant No. 2 that bangles are his Stridhan properties and no provision of the Act has been violated. In spite of the same, the bag containing the gold ornaments were brought out of the well with assistance of a diver and taking husband of the plaintiff to the police station seized the same. Accordingly, suit has been filed claiming the seizure to be illegal.

(3.) PLAINTIFF examined four witnesses and proved the notice to her husband as well as her objection amongst other documents. Besides, she produced a piece of gold bangle marked M.O.I. Defendants examined three witnesses, proved the seizure list, list memo certificate, order confiscating the gold, complaint by the plaintiff in criminal court, his initial deposition, order sheet in the said case and deposition of plaintiff in the said case.