BHARGAVA, J.—This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.6.1991 passed by the S.D.M. Nagaur, refusing to give the delivery of Maruti Gypsy on Supurdginama and also for quashing the order dated 12.6.1991 passed by the Special Magistrate, Economic Offences, Jaipur. 2. As per the facts mentioned in the memo of petition, on 13.4.1991, the police party of Police Station Nagaur apprehended the petitioner along with others and also recovered Indian currency worth Rs. 2.45 lacs from Dwarka Das from Room No. 18 of the Hotel and also seized Maruti Gypsy u/s 102 Cr. P.C. which was parked outside the hotel. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded under threat and coercion. A case No. 26/91 State V. Dwarka Das and others was registered u/s 109 Cr. P.C. The petitioner moved an application before the learned S.D.M. for giving the vehicle to him on Supurdginama, who vide his order dated 22.6.1991 ordered that the vehicle had been seized u/s 102 Cr. P.C. therefore, notice may be issued to the Station House Officer, Nagaur that if the vehicle is not required in this case and any other case and if the said vehicle is not connected with any customs case, the same may be handed over to the petitioner and the matter was fixed for 15.8.91. Meanwhile, the police handed over the custody of the Maruti Gypsy vehicle to Customs Department. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application u/s 457 Cr. P.C. in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) and prayed that the vehicle may be handed over to him on supurdginama. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 12.6.1991 rejected the said application u/s 457 Cr. P.C. and did not hand over possession of the vehicle to the petitioner. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in this court. Notices were issued. Customs Department has put in appearance through Shri K.N. Shrimal, Advocate. Arguments have been heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that in the present case the vehicle was seized u/s 102 Cr. P.C. and was lateron handed over to the Customs Department. The learned Magistrate had no authority or power or jurisdiction to hand over the vehicle to the Customs Department. Arguments have been heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that in the present case the vehicle was seized u/s 102 Cr. P.C. and was lateron handed over to the Customs Department. The learned Magistrate had no authority or power or jurisdiction to hand over the vehicle to the Customs Department. Moreover, nothing has been recovered from the vehicle; no secret chamber has been found in the car which might have been utilised for carrying contraband or smuggled goods and the vehicle is not involved in any criminal offence, whatsoever. The petitioner being the registered owner the vehicle should be handed over to him on Supurdginama otherwise, the vehicle which is lying in open without any care will become of no use. Moreover the petitioner has not received any notice for confiscation of the vehicle and even if the Department has given any notice, it is of no avail because the vehicle cannot be seized in view of Sec. 115(2) of the Customs Act as the conveyance was not used as a means of transporting or smuggling of any goods or in the carriage of any smuggled goods nor was there any evidence for the same. Moreover, even if the vehicle was used for such purpose, the owner of the vehicle has to be given an option to pay in lieu of the confiscation of the conveyance, a fine not exceeding the market price of the goods which are sought to be smuggled by the vehicle. He has placed reliance on Bhanu M. Vakil V. Chandra Oshiram Keswani and another (1) wherein his lordship has discussed the scope of Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. vis-a-vis revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 and 399 Cr. P.C. and has observed that if the order is shown to be illegal or improper, the court should exercise its discretion u/s 397 or 399 Cr. P.C. If the High Court finds it necessary for the prevention of abuse of the process of court or for securing the ends of justice,Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and powers and in that case, there can be no limitation in the exercise of that power. 4. P.C. If the High Court finds it necessary for the prevention of abuse of the process of court or for securing the ends of justice,Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and powers and in that case, there can be no limitation in the exercise of that power. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Customs Department, Shri K.N. Shrimal, Advocate has also very vehemently argued that Sec. 151 of the Customs Act provides that a police officer is required to assist the officers of Customs Department. He has also drawn my attention to Sec. 127, Customs Act which provides that the award of any confiscation or penalty under the Act by an officer of customs shall not prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under the provisions of Chapter XVI of the Act or under any other law Sec. 124 of the Customs Act provides for issue of show cause notice before confiscation of goods. He has submitted that a notice had been sent u/s 124, Customs Act on 10.10.1991 by registered post but the petitioner refused to accept the same and therefore, it should be taken that the notice u/s 124, Customs Act had been served on the petitioner. He has placed reliance on Assistant Collector, Customs, Jaipur V. Surajmal (2) wherein this Court has held that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to make orders with respect to the goods seized by the Customs Officer and liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act at least before launching of criminal prosecution. 5. He has further placed reliance on Supdt. of Customs and Central Excise, Vapi V. Raichand Lakamsingh Shah (3) wherein also it has been held that where a police officer had seized the vehicle and conveyed the same to customs house and subsequently same was seized by the custom officer in exercise of powers u/s 110, Customs Act on the ground that the goods which were carried in the vehicle were smuggled goods, the Magistrate cannot order the Supdt. Customs and Central Excise to return the vehicle to the person who claims to be the owner of it, on Supurdginama. Customs and Central Excise to return the vehicle to the person who claims to be the owner of it, on Supurdginama. Reliance has further been placed on a decision of Bombay High Court in Basant Lal V. Union of India (4) wherein their lordships have also held that the officer before seizing the goods should entertain a belief and not a mere suspicion that the goods are liable to confiscation. 6. Reliance has also been placed on Asstt. Collector of Customs V. Smt. Maria Rege. & others (5) wherein his lordship has held that customs officer is not a police officer and therefore the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order disposing of the property u/s 457 Cr. P.C. He has further drawn my attention to P.O. Thomas V. Union of India (6) wherein also Kerala High Court has held that the Magistrate has no power to issue directions to customs authorities for return of passport and seized goods and the inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 Cr. P.C. could not be invoked. 7. He has further placed reliance on Remopaul V. Union of India (7) wherein it has been held that the order of confiscation u/s 452 (1) Cr. P.C. of foreign currency seized from the petitioner, who was facing trial u/s 135, Customs Act, was illegal. 8. Reliance has also been placed on Asstt. Customs Collector V. Tilak Raj (8) wherein also, it has been held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to return the car u/s 523 Cr. P.C. when the car was recovered by the Customs Deptt. Customs Officer cannot be regarded as police officer within the meaning of Sec. 523 Cr. P.C. 9. I have gone through the impugned orders as also the authorities relied by learned counsel for the parties. 10. There can be no quarrel that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to make orders with respects to the goods seized by the Customs Officer and liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, as has been observed by this Court in Surajmals case (supra), Gujarat High Court in Raichands case (supra), Bombay High Court in Basant Lal, and Kerala High Court in P.O. Thomas and Smt. Maria Rege. (supra) and the observations of Supreme Court in Remopaul (supra) but in all these cases, the conveyance had been seized by the customs authority and was being confiscated by the customs department. (supra) and the observations of Supreme Court in Remopaul (supra) but in all these cases, the conveyance had been seized by the customs authority and was being confiscated by the customs department. In the present case, the facts are slightly different. The petitioner along with others was apprehended by the police (not the customs officer) and a sum of Rs. 2.45 lacs Indian currency had been recovered from one of the co-accused Dwarka Das, from the room in the hotel. The vehicle Maruti Gypsy which was parked outside the hotel was seized u/s 102 Cr. P.C. by the Rajasthan Police and originally an application u/s 102 Cr. P.C. for delivery of the vehicle on Supurdginama was filed before the S.D.M. who vide his order dated 22.6.1991 observed that notice should be issued to the Station House Officer, Nagaur as to whether this vehicle is required for the purpose of this case and if the said vehicle is not connected with any customs case, it should be handed over to the petitioner. Meanwhile, Rajasthan Police had handed over the custody of the vehicle to Customs Department and therefore, an application u/s 451 Cr. P.C. was filed before the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) who passed an order dated 12.6.1991 by which it was ordered that now since the vehicle is in possession of the Customs Department, therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to hand over the custody of the vehicle to the petitioner on Supurdginama and hence, this miscellaneous petition has been submitted before this Court. 11. Learned counsel for the Customs Department has very vehemently submitted that the vehicle stands seized u/s 110 Customs Act and a notice u/s 124 of the Customs Act has also been issued to the petitioner by registered notice which he had refused to take and therefore the order dated 12.6.1991 is quite justified. He has further submitted that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Customs Department, he has a right of appeal u/s 128, Customs Act. He has further submitted that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Customs Department, he has a right of appeal u/s 128, Customs Act. To meet this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the vehicle could not have been seized u/s 110, Customs Act because it was not the proper officer who had seized such goods nor such a proper officer has reason to believe that any goods were liable to confiscation and since a notice has not been served on the petitioner within six months nor there is any evidence, whatsoever that the conveyance was used as a means of transporting smuggled goods or in the carriage of any smuggled goods, it cannot be confiscated nor there is any evidence that there was any secret chamber where any smuggled goods were being carried or were likely to be carried nor any smuggled goods were recovered from the conveyance. The custody of the conveyance was handed over by the Rajasthan Police to Customs Department and it was not originally seized by the Customs Officer or the proper officer, as envisaged by Sec. 2(34) Customs Act. It also cannot be denied that if the conveyance is left in the custody of the police department or the customs department, the vehicle will become unserviceable or un-usable in due course of time. Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. gives wide powers to the High Court to pass any order if it is necessary for the prevention of the abuse of the process of the court or for securing the ends of justice. In the present case, the vehicle is not involved in any smuggling activity nor was it seized by the customs authority and therefore, keeping in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in Madhu Lamiyaes case (9) and the observations of the Bombay High Court in Bhanu M. Vakil (supra), I am of the view that custody of the conveyance Maruti Gypsy should be handed over to the petitioner from whose custody it was seized and in whose name the registration certificate of that vehicle stands, if the petitioner furnishes a security for a sum of Rs.2.50 lacs (Rs. two lacs fifty thousand only) and a Supurdginama for its production in any court as and when required by the Rajasthan Police or the Customs Department in the same condition in which he will receive the custody, to the satisfaction of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur. The petitioner shall also arrange for a coloured photograph of the vehicle in the presence of the Magistrate and the same should be kept on record. 12. In the result, this petition is decided as indicated above. 13. Observations made hereinabove will not affect the decision of the lower court in any manner whatsoever.