- (1.) THE facts disclosed in this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. are that the applicant came to India on a Tourist passport by Air India-Flight 852 on October 8, 1980 in connection with his marriage to be solemnised in the month of January, 1981. on his arrival in India, his entire baggage was checked and examined, by the customs authorities at the Airport and on the same night he boarded Gomti Ex press and reached Kanpur. On October 9, 1980, the applicant was arrested by the police of P. S. Colonelganj and all his ar ticles in the baggage were seized and a case under Section 41|411 I. P. C. was regis tered against him. On October 10, 1980, he applied to the court for release of high goods, stating therein that the goods have already been checked by the customs autorities at Delhi and they were not stolen property. Another application dated October 23, 1980 was also moved by the applicant for the same purpose. On Oqtober 25, 1980, the in vestigating officer in charge reported to the court that the goods were not stolen pro perty. On October 28, 1980 an inspector of customs, Kanpur moved the court that some of the goods may not be returned to the applicant at all and the remaining be returned to him only in his presence. No charge was made till then that the goods were smuggled goods. After examining the goods on October 30, 1980, the inspector of customs applied to the court on November 3, 1980, that the police authorities be direct ed to hand over possession of the- goods to the customs authorities as the said goods were of foreign origin and as these goods were, such as could be confiscated under Section 111, these were liable to seizure un der Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. By an order dated December 1, 1980, the Matropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur directed that the goods be handed over to the cus toms authorities for adjudication according to the Customs Act. THE present petition has been filed for quashing this order. THE main submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the goods can be seized by a proper officer of the customs Department only when he has a rea son to believe that the goods were liable to be confiscated under the Act, as held in Shyam Lal Roshan Lal v. Punjab State 1962 Punjab 496. In that case the expression 'seize' in the context in which it is used in sea customs Act in Section 178-A was denned as 'take possession of goods contrary to the wishes of the owner of the property. ' According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the goods had been seized initially by the police and on the application of the custom's ins pector, they are sought to be transferred from police custody to the custody of cus tom's inspector. None of them is an un willing party. As such the element of un willingness implied in the case of 'seizure' is missing. THE goods are still in the cus tody of the police and have not yet come into possession of the applicant. He, there fore, submits that under Section 110 of the Customs Act, the proper officer could seize the goods if he had reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation. When no seizure at all could be made due to there being no unwillingness on the part of either the court or the police, no action under Sec. 110 of the Act could be taken on a mere re quest in writing. THE application of the custom's inspector that these goods are lia ble to be confiscated, therefore, could not be allowed by the court. In the application dated November 3, 1980 the inspector of cus tom had merely stated that the goods in qu estion were of foreign origin and were lia ble to be confiscated under Section 110 of the Customs Act. On this request alone, it cannot be said that the goods were being 'seized by the custom's officer. Seizure must take place from the custody of an unwilling person in possession of goods and liable to confiscation. THE order passed by the Met ropolitan Magistrate. Kanpur was, therefore, clearly and without jurisdiction. When the goods were initially seized from the posses sion of the applicant they had been seized by the police and not by the customs autho rities. THEreafter no fresh seizure has taken place. If the goods had been handed over by the Matropolitan Magistrate to the appli cant and then they had been seized by the custom's authorities, then probably it could be said that seizure had taken place within THE meaning of Section 110 of the Act. In the circumstances of the present case, there fore, the learned: Magistrate was not right in directing the police to hand over the goods in question to the custom's officers. THE order dated December 1, 1980 is, there fore, bad in law. THE application is allowed and the order dated December 1, 1980 is hereby quashed. .;