MOHAMMED AJMAL MAJOR Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims to be a permanent resident of Bhatkal, has filed this petition for quashing the seizure of Indian currency of Rs. 5,55,000 by the second respondent under seizure proceedings drawn on April 4, 1989 (annexure "O") contending that such seizure amounts to re-seizure which is illegal and without jurisdiction. He also seeks a direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to release and deliver back to the petitioner, the said currency of Rs. 5,55,000 seized under mahazar, dated April 4, 1989, on the ground that it is retained illegally and without jurisdiction.

(2.) It is necessary to refer to the facts leading to the impugned seizure.

(3.) The petitioner claims that he travelled from Bombay to Bhatkal by a Maharashtra luxury bus and got down at Bhatkal on February 18, 1986, at about 19.15 hours, with three packages. When he got down from the bus, certain officers of the Customs Department approached him and asked his name and address; the petitioner furnished them and also produced two tickets showing his travel from Bombay to Bhatkal. Thereupon the Superintendent of Customs informed the petitioner that he had reasonable belief that he was carrying smuggled goods and he was therefore asked to accompany them to the Customs office for detailed examination and search. On search by the Customs Superintendent at the Customs office, it was found that the two cardboard packages carried by the petitioner contained homeopathic medicines and personal articles of domestic use and nothing else. The third package (a sack hand bag) that was being carried by the petitioner contained Indian currency notes of the value of Rs. 5,55,000, wrapped in old newspapers. The petitioner claims that he had explained to the Customs officials that the amount had been received as a loan at Bombay to be handed over to his father at Bhatkal. However, the Superintendent of Customs seized the currency notes of Rs. 5,55,000 on the ground that they were unaccounted and the petitioner had failed to produce proof for valid possession of such amount. The seizure was effected under mahazar, dated February 18, 1986 (annexure "A").