(1.) The facts, out of which this revision petition against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has arisen are as follows :-
(2.) On the 4th September, 1968, Tilak Raj respondent, brother of Bal Kishan Khanna, made an application, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, praying that the car seized may be returned to him. The application was opposed on behalf of the Customs Preventive Department. It was pleaded that as the car was liable to be confiscated under section 115(2) of the Customs Act, only Customs Officers had jurisdiction to take proceedings with respect to the car and that as no criminal proceedings had been launched in the Court with respect of the smuggling of the 13 bars of gold, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to return the car. That application was dismissed on the 10th September, 1968, on the ground of non-prosecution as Tilak Raj respondent had failed to put in appearance. On the 13th September, 1968, Tilak Raj, respondent made another application for the return of the car on spurdari. That applica- tion was opposed by the Customs Preventive Department on the same grounds on which the earlier application had been opposed. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate allowed the application of Tilak Raj respondent and returned the car to him on spurdari. He held that as the application was for the return of the car on spurdari only, it did not debar the Customs Preventive Depart- ment to confiscate the car under the law.
(3.) The Assistant Collector Customs went up in revision to the Court of Session against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The revision petition was heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate could not be sustained either under section 516(A) or under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, but could be sustained under section 523 of the Code. He, therefore, dismissed the revision petition.