( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Managing Partner of the firm called "select Trading co. at Egmore, Madras. The firm is engaged in speculative business money lending and also as agents, brokers etc. On 15-12-1972, the Customs authorities have seized from the petitioner's possession a sum of Rs. 3,15,000. In this petition under Art. 226, he challenges the legality of the said seizure. ( 2 ) THE seizure was made in the following circumstances : on 15-12-1972 the petitioner was travelling at Bangalore in a Car mix) 6575 belonging to his firm. He was carrying 3 lakhs and 15 thousand in Indian currency. At about 2-15 p. m. while he was passing near venkataramanappa Choultry on the Palace Road. Bangalore he was intercepted by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise - Respondent-2. who searched his car and seized the entire currency notes under a mahazar prepared. On the next day, he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, civil Station, Bangalore, to whom the petitioner complained that the respondents have obtained statements from him under duress. On 27-12-1972. the petitioner referred this Writ Petition praying for an order to quash the seizure and for a direction to the respondents to return the sum seized. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in his affidavit has stated that the respondents have illegally searched his car and seized the amount which belongs to his firm. He has further stated that at the time of the search and seizure, respondent-2 had no reason to believe that his car was being used in the smuggling of goods or in the carriage of any goods which have been smuggled. He has also stated that mere possession of currency notes cannot furnish "a reason to believe" for any case of smuggling and no businessman at this rate is safe from the tyranny of the Customs officials. It is partinent to remember that during the search of the petitioner and his car, nothing incriminating in nature was revealed. That was so stated in the mahazar dated 15-12-1972 prepared by the respondents after completion of the search. It is partinent to remember that during the search of the petitioner and his car, nothing incriminating in nature was revealed. That was so stated in the mahazar dated 15-12-1972 prepared by the respondents after completion of the search. ( 4 ) THE respondents while resisting the petition, have staged in their counter affidavit as follows : the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, received an information on 15-12-1972 that a certain person would be arriving in a car and would be waiting near Y. H. Venkataramanappa Choultry near the Maharani's College on Palace Road between 14-30 hours and 15-00 hours and that if the said car is intercepted either contraband gold or the sale proceeds of contraband gold in currency would be found. The Car No. MDO 6575 which was being driven by the petitioner who was the sole occupant of the car, was intercepted at about 14-30 hours by respondent-2, with the help of respondent No. 1 and other officers. The car was checked in the presence of independent witnesses and a mahazar was prepared at the spot. " further: "as the petitioner could not satisfactorily account for the possession of the currency notes of the total value of Rs. 3,15,000 and on the reasonable belief that the currency notes represented the sale preceeds of the contraband gold, they were seized in accordance with law for action under the Customs Act 1962. At para 3 of the counter, it is stated as follows:-- it may be mentioned here that the petitioner belongs to a family who indulge in smuggling activities who are all on the black list of the Department. In fact, the petitioner's father Sri Armugam Pillai and his brother Sri A. Ramalingam are at present undergoing. trial in a Criminal Prosecution in C C. No. 2154/71 on the file of the City V court, Bangalore, for an. offence of smuggling 200 tolas of gold with foreign markings. ". ( 5 ) IN the course of the arguments before me, Mr. trial in a Criminal Prosecution in C C. No. 2154/71 on the file of the City V court, Bangalore, for an. offence of smuggling 200 tolas of gold with foreign markings. ". ( 5 ) IN the course of the arguments before me, Mr. Papanna, Central government Pleader, submitted by way of preliminary objections that the authorities under the Customs Act have already initiated adjudicatory proceedings for confiscation of the currency notes and in that proceeding it is still open to the petitioner to satisfactorily establish that he is not guilty of any offence and that the sum seized is not liable to be confiscated and, therefore he cannot move this Court under Art. 226 without taking recourse to, the remedies provided under the Act. ( 6 ) IN my view, it may not be correct to reject this petition on the ground that the adjudicatory proceedings have already commenced. The petitioner has approached this Court immediately after the seizure of the currency notes and long before the adjudicatory proceedings commenced. He has challenged the validity of the search and seizure on the ground that they were illegal and made without authority. It is opan to this Court to pronounce upon the validity of the search and 'seizure, whenever a complaint is made by an aggrieved party. The aggrieved party has a right to move this Court for an order to return the seized goods on the proof that the seizure was illegal or the controlling principles have not been followed by the authorities who seized the goods. ( 7 ) IN this context, a reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme court in Income-tax Officer, Spl. Investigating Circle v. Seth Brothers 74 ITR. 835. . The Court while considering the pqwer to 'search and seize' conferred by s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, observed:"since by the excise of the power under S. 132 of the Incometax Act, 1961, a serious invasion is made upon the rights privacy and freedom of the tax-payer, the power must be exercised in accordance with the law and only for the purposes for which the law authirises it to be exercised. If the action of the officer issuing the authorisation or of the designated officer is challenged the officer concerned must satisfy the Court about regularity of his action. If the action of the officer issuing the authorisation or of the designated officer is challenged the officer concerned must satisfy the Court about regularity of his action. If the action maliciously taken or power under the section is exercised for a collateral purpose, it is liable to be struck down by the Court. If the conditions for the exercise of the power are not satisfied the proceeding is liable to be quashed. " ( 8 ) IT was further observed: "the aggrieved party may undoubtedly move a. competent court for an order releasing the documents seized. In such a proceeding the officer who has made the search will be called upon to prove how the documents seized are likely to be useful for or relevant to a proceeding under the Act. If he is unable to do so, the Court may. order that those documents be released. ( 9 ) IN that view, I reject the preliminary objection raised for the respondents. Before proceeding further, I have to refer to the material provisions of the Customs Act 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The Act has an extensive executive base to have an effective control of the prohibited or notified goods, collecting duties and, adjudicating upon the offences and also for imposing penalties. Chapter XIII comprising Ss. 100 to 110, deals with searches, seizure and arrest. Section 100 provides for the search of suspected persons entering or leaving India. The search could be extended to any goods liable to confiscation and documents relating thereto s. 101 is limited to the search of the suspected persons, in reference to, gold, diamonds, watches and any other class of notified goods. S. 105 provides power to search premises. Section 106 confers power to stop and search conveyances used qr about to be used in the smuggling of any goods. The concerned authority before exercising his pqwer to search under any one of the above provisions, must have a "reason to believe" that the suspected person has secreted any goods which are liable to confiscation or that the carrier has been, qr is abqut to be or actually used in the smuggling of any goods. Next comes the power-packed S. 110. It states that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation, he may seize such goods. Next comes the power-packed S. 110. It states that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation, he may seize such goods. The subsequent chapter of the Act, Chapter XIV, provides for the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. Out of those provisions, S. 121 is most relevant for our purpose. It provides for the confiscation of sale proceeds of smuggled. goods, if they are sold by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are smuggleed goods. ( 10 ) WITH that, let me now turn to the rival contentions. For the petitioner, it was urged that the search and seizure of the currency notes were made arbitrarily and without any reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation under the Act. For the respondent, the search and seizure were sought to be justified by the provisions of Ss. 106, 110 and 121 though the counter-affidavit filed in the case rules out the applicability of S. 106. Except the statement in the counter-affidavit, nothing else has been placed before the Court to justify the seizure of currency notes nor is there anything to indicate that the sum seized was the sale proceeds of any smuggled goods. At one stage of the arguments, Mr. Papanna for the respondents said that he is not bound to disclose to the Court the reasons or the information collected by the authorities before effecting the search and seizure, in support of his contention, he relied upon the observation of this Court in Ganeshmul Channilal Gandhi v. Collector of Central excise AIR. 1968 Mys. 89. wherein Somanath Iyer, J. observed: there is hardly any dqubt that before the proper officer to whom s. 119 (1) refers could make a seizure under S. 110 (1), he should have reason to believe that the goods which he proposed to seize are liable to confiscation under the Act. But it is equally clear that the, belief which he should form in his mind is a subjective belief on grounds which he need not disclose and which are not subject to judicial review. Moreover in none of these two writ petitions do the petitioners state that the officers who seized the gold had no reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation or that the belief was an unreasonble belief. Moreover in none of these two writ petitions do the petitioners state that the officers who seized the gold had no reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation or that the belief was an unreasonble belief. " ( 11 ) THAT was a case in which the contraband gold wag seized and the petitioners who challenged the validity of the seizure did not contend that the proper officer whq seized the gold had no reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation or that the belief he entertanied was an unreasonable belief. In the premises, the observation made by learned judge that the grqunds of seizure need not be disclosed and cannot be subjected to judicial review was clearly an obiter and also, contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court. The Court is always entitled tq, enquire whether the belief in the mind of the proper officer who effected the seizure was reasonable or not. But while considering that question, the Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the said officer. The Supreme court in Pukhraj v. D. R. Kohli AIR. 1962 SC. 1559. , while dealing with the scope of Section 178a of the Sea Customs Act, observed that the Court can consider whether there was ground which prima facie justified the said reasonable belief entertained by the officer who effected the search. ( 12 ) THE condition precedent either for a search under S. 106 or for seizure under S. 110 is that the proper officer must have reason to believe that a vehicle is being used in the smuggling of any goods or the goods he may seize are liable to confiscation under the Act. The expression ' reason to believe' occurs in several statutes. Reference may be made, to S. 34 of the income-tax Act, 1922; S. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; S. 178a of the sea Customs Act, 1878 S. 66 of the Gold Control Act, 1968; etc. In Calcutta Discount Co. , Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer AIR. 1961 SC. 372. The expression ' reason to believe' occurs in several statutes. Reference may be made, to S. 34 of the income-tax Act, 1922; S. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; S. 178a of the sea Customs Act, 1878 S. 66 of the Gold Control Act, 1968; etc. In Calcutta Discount Co. , Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer AIR. 1961 SC. 372. , the said expression was held to mean a belief held in good faith and not a mere pretence and in a proceedings under Art. 226 the High Court can investigates the existence of those conditions, i. e. whether the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that under-assessment has resulted in non-disclosure of material facts. ( 13 ) IN Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asst. Commr. of I. T. AIR. 1971 SC. 2451. , it was qbserved that the words 'reason to believe suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable ground and not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. It was further observed that the Court can always examine this aspect, though the declaration or the sufficiency of the reason for the belief cannpt bet in vestigated. In Asst. Collr. of Customs v. Charon Das Malhtra AIR. 1972 SC. 689. the Supreme court while dealing with the scope of the said words occurring in S. 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, held that that expression was not absolutely subjective inasmuch as the reasons for the belief have to be relevant and not extraneous. In Collr. , Cen. Excise v. Kashi Nath AIR. 1972 All. 231. the Allahabad High Court, while dealing with the meaning of the said expression occurring in S. 66 of the Gold Control Act, 1968, observed that the provision is not designed to be used as a handle for indiscriminate seizures, nor does it permit capricious acts with a view to making a roving enquiry into the affairs off a dealer's business in order to, fish out materials on the off-chance of getting something to justify the act. In my opinion, the said expression whether it occurs in one Act or the other, has settled meaning and its several features may conveniently be sqt out as follows : it is not just an abstract concept so that it could be fitted into picked situations . It is procise and circumscribed. In my opinion, the said expression whether it occurs in one Act or the other, has settled meaning and its several features may conveniently be sqt out as follows : it is not just an abstract concept so that it could be fitted into picked situations . It is procise and circumscribed. It may be based on broad but, nevertheless, should rest on definite information. The information should be anterior in point of time of search or seizure and not subsequent to it. It cannot therefore, be the result of something thq facts discovered or circumstances revealed during the process of search or seizures. The reasonable belief should always be above the uncertain thing called 'the suspicion. ( 14 ) THE Courts fairly concede the right of the Customs Authorities to be the judge of their own information as giving them a fair basis for reasonable belief. But the Courts are entitled to look out for the basis of reasonaable belief adopted by the authorities in justification of search or seizure though that scrutiny does not extend to the determination of its adequacy. In other words, the satisfaction of the authorities cannot be purely a subjective process but should be tempered with objective tests. In the instant case all that has been disclosed to the Court was that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise received some information on 15-12-1972 that a certain person would be arriving in a car and would be waiting near Venkataramanappa Choultry near the Maharani's College at palace Road between 2-30 p. m. and 3 p. m. and if the said car is intercepted, either contraband gold or the sale proceeds of the contraband gold in currency notes would be found. The statement in the, counter-affidavit is not clear whether the said information gave the particulars of the car or the person travelling in that car. Obviously, there were no such particulars. The respondents did not look out for a car which should have been kept waiting near the Venkataramanappa Choultry, Perhaps, there was no such waiting car at that Choultry. They, however, intercepted the car at that Choultry MDO 6575 which was being driven by the petitioner in front of the said Choultry at about 14-45 hours. The car was moving towards Mysore Bank Circle. It was perhaps one of the several hundreds of cars which pass through every hour in that street. They, however, intercepted the car at that Choultry MDO 6575 which was being driven by the petitioner in front of the said Choultry at about 14-45 hours. The car was moving towards Mysore Bank Circle. It was perhaps one of the several hundreds of cars which pass through every hour in that street. It is one of the main streets in the centre of Bangalore City. The respondents stopped the said car and searched 4t. No contraband gold was seized. Nothing incriminating was found. No documents relating to the sale proceeds of any contraband gold were discovered. The only thing that was recovered was a sum of Rs. 3,15,000 in hundred rupee denomination currency notes. On the basis of the materials placed before the Court and from the, manner in which the petitioner's car was stopped and searched by the respondents, I have no doubt that the search of the petitioner's car was conducted in the nature of a fishing expedition and without the foundation of a reasonable belief. Let me now turn to the next contention urged for the petitioner. It was urged that the seizure of the currency notes was wholly illegal and arbitrary. ( 15 ) THE word 'goods as defined under S. 2 (22) of the Act, includes : (a) vessels aircrafts and vehicles; (b) stores; (c) baggage; (d) currency and negotiable instruments; and (e) any other kind of moveable property. But, under S. 110, only those goods which are liable to confiscation under the Act could be seized. Let me see which are the goods that are liable to confiscation. S. 111 sets out the types of goods brought from a place outside. India and they are liable to confiscation. S. 113 enumerates the kinds of export goods which shall be liable to confiscation. S. 115 deals with conveyances which are liable to confiscation. S. 120 stages that smuggled goods may be confiscated notwithstanding any change in their form. Likewise, packages and their contents (S. 118) or any goods used for concealing smuggled goods (S. 119) shall also be liable to confiscation. The act however, makes an exception so far as the currency and negotiable instruments are concerned. S. 120 stages that smuggled goods may be confiscated notwithstanding any change in their form. Likewise, packages and their contents (S. 118) or any goods used for concealing smuggled goods (S. 119) shall also be liable to confiscation. The act however, makes an exception so far as the currency and negotiable instruments are concerned. Though they are included within the definition of the word 'goods', they are not liable to confiscation unless they represent the sale proceeds of any smuggled gqods where such goods are sold by a person haying knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are smuggled goods (S. 12l ). If the smuggled goods are sold by a person with bonafide belief that they are not smuggled goqds, then, the sale proceeds thereof are not liable to confiscation, and, therefore, they cannot be seized by the authorities under S. 110. The question, therefore is whether respondent 2 had reason to believe that the amount of Rs. 3,15,000 which the petitioner was carrying, represented the sale proceeds of smuggled gold, which was sold by a person having knowledge that it was smuggled gold. The reasonableness of the belief entertained by the respondents has to be judged by all the circumstances appearing at the moment of the search and seizure and not on the basis of the information or material collected subsequently. ( 16 ) MR. Papanna submitted that the petitioner belongs to a family which is in the black-list of the Department and that is also a circumstance to believe that the currency notes seized from the petitioner were the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. I do not know how that circumstance is of any assistance to the case of the respondents. The alleged past activities of the members of the petitioner's family, including his father, even if they are true, cannot be a reasonable ground to believe that the currency which the petitioner carried, was the sale proceeds of smuggled gold which was sold by a person having knowledge or reason to believe the goods were smuggled gold. This is not a case where the goods seized themselves furnish reasonable belief, as often it happens in the case of smuggled gold or other contraband goods. Here is a case of a seizure of currency notes, which are neither Smuggled nor prohibited goods. This is not a case where the goods seized themselves furnish reasonable belief, as often it happens in the case of smuggled gold or other contraband goods. Here is a case of a seizure of currency notes, which are neither Smuggled nor prohibited goods. In such a case, the Court should carefully scrutinise the foundation for the reasonable belief entertained by the Customs Officers in order to prevent harassing seizures. part from that, S. 110 does not authorise fishing enquiries in the expectation that some ground for confiscation might be discovered. When it and Admitted that there was no incriminating circumstance connecting the cash to the Sale of any smuggled gold, the seizure must ba held to have been made only on a pretence or suspicion. ( 17 ) MR. Papanna however, urged that the petitioner was not able to give a satisfactory account of the huge sum of money in his possession at the time of seizure. This is a disputed question. The petitioner says that his statement was recorded by force. Whatever that may be, it is no ground for the officers to seize the currency notes. The petitioner might be answerable \ to the Income-tax Department but not to the Customs Authorities for possessing unaccountable money. In the result, I allow the petition and quash the seizure proceedings conducted by the respondents on 15-12-1972 with a direction to them to return the sum of Rs. 3,15,000 seized by them to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. --- *** --- .