Rajendera Nath Miital, J. - (1.) BRIEFLY the case of the Petitioner is that he and some other persons were travelling in a ear(sic) on the Grand Trunk Road Ludhiana side to Goraya side. When they were between Phillaur and Goraya, the police conducted a raid on receipt of a secret information, checked the car and recovered currency notes worth Rs. 41800 -/ 13 gold sovereigns and 32 bore pistol from it. The Petitioner made an application under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cods) for delivery of Rs. 4,18,000/ - to him. The Superintendent Customs, Amritsar, also made a similar application. The Magistrate 1st Class, Phitlaur vide order dated October 3, 1970 ordered that all the goods including the car except the revolver(sic) and the bullets be given to the Custom authorities for adjudication of the matter under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to as the Act). The Petitioner was, however, challenged regarding the pistol under the Indian Arms Act and the case is still pending He filed a revision petition against the order of the Magistrate to the Sessions Judge, Jullundur when the revision petition was pending, the Collector Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh, served a notice dated December 16, 1972 (copy Annexure 'D') on the Petitioner that he should appear before him on January 5, 1973 and produce all evidence in support of his defence regarding the seizure of Rs. 4,l3,000/ -and 13 gold sovereigns and if he failed to appear, the case would be decided without any further reference to him The Petitioner filed a reply dated December 22. 1972 to the said notice inter olia stating that the matter was sub judica before the Additional Sessions Judge, and consequently the proceedings be stayed till the final decision of the case by him. On January 24, 1973, the Collector issued another communication to the Petitioner that his request had not been acceded to. Therefore, he asked him to appear before him on February 23, 1973.
(2.) ON April 18, 1973, the Additional Sessions Judge accepted the revision petition and made a recommendation to the High Court under Section 438 of the Code for setting aside the order of the Magistrate. The case is now pending in this Court for decision. Thereafter the Petitioner received a communication from the Collector intimating him that the next date of hearing was April 30, 1973. The Petitioner appeared before him on the date of hearing and made an application to the effect that the matter was pending in the High Court and, therefore, It would be proper that the further proceedings in the case be stayed till the decision of the High Court. In spite of the aforesaid application, it is alleged, the Collector recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and rejected his prayer for stay The Petitioner has filed the writ petition for quashing the statement of Sant Lal, a prosecution witness (copy annexure 'J'). It is also prayed that the Collector be restrained from continuing the proceedings. The writ petition has been contested by the Respondent who, inter alia pleaded that there is no legal bar on the Respondent to proceed with the enquiry pending before him under the Customs Act.
(3.) THE first contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the property was entrusted to the Respondent by the Magistrate and revision petition against that order has been accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, who has recommended it to the High Court. The learned Counsel submits that the proceedings are still pending in the High Court and during the pendency of the proceedings the Respondent has seized the property which he could not do. He made reference to the notice issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner wherein the property has been shown to have been seized. The learned Counsel for the Respondent was fair enough to admit that the property could no be seized by the Collector till the proceedings in the criminal Court were pending. He submits that the property has not been seized by the Respondent and the mention of the seizure in the notice is through oversight. In view of the aforesaid concession of the learned Counsel, the question is decided accordingly.;