The Kamoke Police had intercepted truck No. P. R. C. 5889, on 26th July, 1978 and the truck and the goods which it was carrying were seized on the suspicion that they were smuggled goods. The relevant F. I. R. Was lodged, on 27th July, 1978. It is stated that the truck was subsequently released on Superdari but the goods which had been seized from the truck, have not been released so far, nor had any notice to show cause, been issued to the petitioner, as required under section 180 of the Customs Act. It has, therefore, been prayed that a direction be given for release of the goods in favour of the petitioner who was by law entitled to such release.
2. Section 168 which relates to seizure of goods liable to confiscation, lays down that where any goods are seized and no show-cause notice in respect thereof is given under section 180 within two months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from posses--sion they were seized (See subsection (2)). There is proviso added to this subsection to the effect that the period of two months may, for axons to be recorded in writing, be extended by the Collector Customs by a period not exceeding two months. Admittedly, no notice was issued as content plated under subsection (2) of section 168 The Deputy Collector customs (respondent No. 3) in his comments has, explained that he was not concerned m the matter as the case property had not been submitted to him. It orally asserted by respondent No. 2; Rana Abdur Rashid, then S. D. P.O.
Kamoke, who had investigated the case, that he had contacted the Customs authorities for making over the case-property to them but that they had refused to receive the same for the reason that they had no accommodation. No letter or document is, however, produced to support this assertion. I have also no reason to accept the assertion in view of a comments received from the Deputy Collector, Custom. Be that as it may it is clear that notice to show cause as required under section 180 was not given the goods are, therefore, required to be returned to the person from whose possession the same had been seized. The judgment by another Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 190 of 1975, decided on 20th September, 1976, supports this view. The legal position is not being contested by the learned Assistant Advocate-General. The reason which had prompted the police officers not to have issued the notice and instead to have sat on the goods resulting in the likely failure of the case against the alleged smugglers, requires to be departmentally enquired into and I hope the Police authorities will not shirk their duty to examine the conduct of their subordinates which leads to frustration of the efforts of the Government to apprehend and bring to book the smugglers in the Province.
3. In view, however, of the legal position, I accept the writ petition and direct that the goods seized from truck No. P. R. C. 5889 shall be released to the petitioners without delay.