SAJIN Vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner put forth only one point for consideration, at this stage, namely whether or not the second respondent is justified in retaining the goods seized from the petitioner on 31. 7. 1998.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that on 31. 7. 1998 the second respondent seized 99 items of articles in 8 parcels including foreign made foreign liquor in bottles and the same was produced before the Magistrate on 6. 8. 1998 and that though the second respondent may have jurisdiction to proceed with under the Kerala Abkari Act, even for the sake of the argument, the second respondent cannot retain the other articles (other than foreign made foreign liquor) such as Codeless Phone, Car Stereo, Digital Ordinary Phone, Yardly Powder, Calculators, Re-Chargeable battery etc. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent ought to have, if he so desired, intimated the concerned Customs Officer, who alone, if at all be in a position to initiate proceedings against the petitioner, if such officer comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has violated any of the provisions of the Customs Act.