Judgment :- 1. This case arises under Part XII-A comprising R.126-A to 126-Z of the Defence of India R.1962, relating to Gold Control - hereinafter called the Rules. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of Mohan Jewellery, Sherthallai. On January 23,1963, the Deputy Superintendent, Division Preventive, Trivandrum, made a surprise check of the stock and accounts at his shop and found out ornaments of 21 carat gold of a total weight of 260 grams in an iron safe that had not been included in a declaration filed by him or in his stock register. The ornaments were seized under R.126-L of the Rules. The petitioner, in a statement given the same day, urged that he was only a dealer registered under the Sales-tax Act who had not applied for a licence under the Rules and that the ornaments seized belonged to his sister and the members of his family and were not included in his declaration as they were not meant for sale but were kept in the safe at the premises only for safe custody. By a notice dated September 5,1963, he was asked to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for violation of R.126-H (1) and the ornaments confiscated under R.126-M. In reply thereto the petitioner reiterated that the ornaments did not belong to him. At the hearing before the Collector of Customs and Central Excise he contended that R.126-H would apply only to a dealer licensed under the Rules. The Collector, in his order dated December 24,1963, found that the petitioner had applied for a licence and therefore had to be reckoned "for all practical purposes" as a licensed dealer even though a licence had not actually been issued to him, that the ornaments seized from his business premises had to be taken as part of his stock-in-trade and that he had contravened R.126-H (1) and therefore ordered confiscation of the ornaments under R.126-M. In this O.P. the petitioner states that he has applied for a licence only on March 23,1963, that R.126-H applies only to a licensed dealer which he was not at the material time when the seizure was made and that the seizure and confiscation are illegal and without jurisdiction and have therefore to be quashed by this Court. 3. 3. The Rules have been amended by a subsequent Notification dated June 24,1963; but, as nobody can be punished under an ex post facto law (vide: Art.20 of the Constitution), the guilt on the part of the petitioner has to be judged by the law of the day when he is stated to have committed the offence, that is to say, by the Rules as they stood before the aforesaid amendment. R.126-H then applied only to a dealer or refiner "who is licensed under this Part". The subsequent clauses in the Rule made clear that the adjectival clause "who is licensed under this Part" applied equally to a dealer as well as to a refiner. It then follows that to attract the Rule the petitioner must have been a licensed dealer at the relevant time. Admittedly the petitioner had not been granted a license under the Rules then. According to the Collector, a person who has applied for, but not been granted a licence has to be reckoned for all practical purposes a licensed dealer. Under R.126-E a person may carry on business in gold without a licence "for the period within which he is required to apply for such licence" and such period is 30 days from the commencement of the Rules which was on January 9,1963. There is no provision in the Rules that a person to whom time is allowed to apply for a licence may be deemed a licensed dealer. A person "who is licensed" can only be one to whom a licence has been granted. To me the position seems to be clear; but I would add that even if there be any ambiguity in the confiscatory provision that has to be resolved in favour of the citizen and against the State. It is now admitted before me by counsel appearing for the Revenue that the observation of the Collector that the petitioner has applied for a licence relates to the circumstances as on the date of his order, and not as on the day of the seizure. On the day the seizure was made, the petitioner was not a dealer who was licensed under the Rules. On the day the seizure was made, the petitioner was not a dealer who was licensed under the Rules. It follows that, on the day the seizure was made, R.126-H of the Rules cannot be said to apply to him; in other words, the petitioner cannot be said to have contravened R.126-H on January 23,1963, when he was not a dealer licensed under the Gold Control Rules. 4. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the confiscation ordered under R.126-M is appealable under Sub-Rule 3 thereof. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Karamchand Thappar & Bros. (XVI S.T.C. 412,417): "The existence of an alternative remedy is no bar to a party who comes to this Court with an allegation that its fundamental right has been infringed without the authority of law. In an appropriate case it may be the duty of the superior court to issue a writ of certiorari to correct the errors of an inferior court or tribunal called upon to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions and not to relegate the petitioner to other legal remedies available to him." It is not disputed that the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, ordering confiscation of property seized under the Rules, is exercising a quasi-judicial function. 5. In the result, the offence of contravention of the Rules levelled against the petitioner has to be declared not made out and the confiscation of ornaments under R.126-M as a penalty for his contravention of R.126-H has to be declared unwarranted and illegal. The rule issued in this case is therefore made absolute and the order impugned, Ext. P1, is quashed. The 1st respondent will release the gold seized from the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, I do not make any order as to costs here. Allowed.