PREM CHANDRA CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has sought relief for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction to the respondents who are officers of the Customs Department to return a jeep bearing registration No. BPFII of which the petitioner claims to be owner (vide copy of the registration certificate, Annexure 1 to the writ application).

(2.) THE relevant facts of the ease lie in a very narrow compass: The vehicle was seized on 9 9 1993 by the Inspector of Customs (Preventive) (respondent No.4) on India Nepal Border at a place near Muzaffarpur in pursuance of the provision of Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act') when it was found loaded with some computer parts, which, according to the custom officials (respondents), were foreign goods made in Malaysia and Japan and were being smuggled on the jeep. The driver of the jeep along with its two occupants were arrested.

(3.) A counter affidavit and also a supplementary affidavit sworn by respondent No. 3 were filed. The stand of (lie respondents is that the vehicle was seized when it was smuggling computer parts manufactured in Malaysia and Japan and that a confiscation proceeding in terms of Section 124 of the Act had been started, and a notice (copy of which is Annexure A) as contemplated under Section 124 of the Act had also been served on the driver of the jeep who was in possession of the vehicle at the time of seizure. According to die learned Counsel for die respondents the law does not necessarily require service of notice as contemplated by Section 124 of the Act on the owner of the vehicle also and service of notice on driver from whose possession the vehicle in question was seized is sufficient in law for confiscating the vehicle in question.