Judgment 1. This writ petition is so filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Bikaner- Assam Road India Lines Limited through its senior manager Ajit Kumar Doshi of Patna Branch of the said concern for the release of the betel nuts seized by the respondent-authorities on 12th of July, 1999, seizure so made at Dumri Ghat by the customs authorities, mainly on the ground that the respondent-authorities have violated the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 124 (a) of the Act. 2. This writ petition was so taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. It is averred that after the seizure of the betel nuts under the provisions of Section 110(1) of the Act, no notice in respect thereof was given under Clause (a) of section 124 within six months from the date of the seizure and in such situation the petitioner is entitled to get back the goods seized. In support of his this contention the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the seizure was so made on 12.7.99 and the notice was to be given under section 110(2) of the Act by 11.1.2000 but the notice to this effect was so presented in the post office on 11.1.2000 being signed one day prior, i.e., on 10.1.2000 and the present petitioner received the same after lapse of six months, i.e. on 21.1.2000. In this connection, reference is made to Annexure-6. Because of the notice being received after a lapse of six months, it has been argued that in such circumstance, the goods be returned to the person from whose possession they were so seized. Admittedly, in the present case there is no extension of time so given beyond six months for service of notice. Over and above, it is prayed that the whole proceeding be quashed initiated by the respondent-authorities including the confiscation proceeding. In support of this contention on behalf of the petitioner reported case so cited is A.I.R. 1972 Gujrat 126 (Ambalal Morarji Soni vs. Union of India). Over and above, it is prayed that the whole proceeding be quashed initiated by the respondent-authorities including the confiscation proceeding. In support of this contention on behalf of the petitioner reported case so cited is A.I.R. 1972 Gujrat 126 (Ambalal Morarji Soni vs. Union of India). It is, in this context, pointed out that the word "Give" as used in section 110(2) of the Act means actual communication of the notice to the person concerned, failure of which entitles the person concerned to get back the goods so seized. A reference is also made to an order passed in Criminal Writ No. 553/99 by this Court dated 26.11.1999 (unreported case) in which the same view was so taken by this Court banking upon the decision of A.I.R.1972 Gujrat 126 (supra). A photostat copy of the order so passed in said Criminal Writ by this Court is filed for perusal. By referring to A.I.R. 1966 S.C.330 (K. Narasimhiah vs. S.H.C. Singri Gowda and others) it is pointed out by, particularly, referring to its paragraph 11 that giving of anything as ordinarily understood is not complete unless it has reached the hands of the person to whom it has to be given. 4. The respondents being represented by the learned counsel Mr. Rakesh Kumar is also heard. 5. Counter-affidavit so filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in connection with this matter on 29.3.2000 is on the record. Rejoinder to the same is so filed on behalf of the petitioner. 6. On behalf of the respondents it is pointed out that earlier the petitioner had come before this court filing Cr.W.J.C.No. 485/99 for quashing of the seizure memo dated 12.7.99 and for the release of the seized articles along with the vehicle so used and for declaring such seizure of the goods as well as the vehicle used (truck) to be illegal and malafide. The said writ petition was so disposed of on 28.9.99 and being aggrieved the petitioner along with two others filed L.P.A. bearing No. 1101/99 which was so also disposed of on 10.1.2000 by the Division Bench of this Court with certain direction but this time by filing another writ petition (the present one) the petitioner has almost sought the same relief/s by slightly changing the stand and that the show-cause notice was issued under registered post within the period stipulated under section 110(2) of the Act i.e. within six months from the date of seizure because notice was given to the petitioner on 11.1.2000 when the notice was so signed on 10.1.2000 itself which was so presented to the post office on 11.1.2000 affixing postal stamps, the notice being sent under registered cover by putting the correct address and that way there is compliance of the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act. In support of this contention it is further pointed out that the provisions of section 110(2) of the Act is to be read with the provisions of section 124(a) and 153 of the Act. The picture in such circumstance is made more clear by going through the provisions of section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897. Reference is made to a reported case in A.I.R. 1974 Madras 224 (B. Bhoormal Tirupati vs. Additional Collector of Customs), particularly its paragraphs 2 and 3 are referred and it is submitted that as per section 153 of the Act the notice is to be served by sending it by registered post to the person for whom it is intended within the stipulated time and also by looking into the provisions of section 27 of the General Clauses Act that when a document is to be sent by registered post at the proper address with pre-paid postage, its service is deemed to be effected at the time when such letter is presented, before the post office for despatch. On behalf of the respondents reference is made to some of the other reported cases in support of this contention and they are 1997 (91) E.L.T.51 (Cal.) Union of India vs. Kanti Trafdar and 1999 (113) E.L.T.57 (Cal.). The learned counsel for the respondents has also banked upon another reported case 1982 Cr.L.J. 2227 (Delhi) Rajendra Sachar vs. R.N.Agarwal. On behalf of the respondents reference is made to some of the other reported cases in support of this contention and they are 1997 (91) E.L.T.51 (Cal.) Union of India vs. Kanti Trafdar and 1999 (113) E.L.T.57 (Cal.). The learned counsel for the respondents has also banked upon another reported case 1982 Cr.L.J. 2227 (Delhi) Rajendra Sachar vs. R.N.Agarwal. It is also pointed out that failure to issue show cause notice within the prescribed time is in no way a fetter upon the power to initiate confiscation proceeding and the penalty proceeding under section 124 of the Act or even to lodge a prosecution in criminal court. The seizure of goods under sub-section (1) and return of the same under sub-section (2) of section 110 are different from the issuance of show cause notice for confiscation of goods or imposition of personal penalty as contemplated under section 124 of the Act. Section 124 of the Act does not lay down any period within which the notice required by it has to be given, the period laid down under section 110(2) of the Act affects only the seizure of the goods and not the validity of the notice. Thus if there is non- service of notice under section 110(2) that affects only the seizure of the goods and does not debar the authorities from taking any penal actions but in the instant case it is also emphatically argued that since the notice was so despatched under registered cover affixing pre-paid postage address being the conect addressed to the person concerned and that so being made within the period of six months from the date of the seizure in the instant case, question with regard to return of goods under the provisions of section 110(2) of the Act is also in no way attracted. It has also been mentioned that in the present case even the confiscation order has been passed by the respondents and against that the Act itself provides remedy and reference is made to the provisions of Chapter XV of the Act and since this remedy being very much available to the petitioner on this count too, he can not seek any relief by way of filing this writ petition. 7. 7. After hearing both side lawyers also after going through the contents of the writ petition, the affidavit in opposition filed and the rejoinder to that effect filed on behalf of the petitioner, the relevant sections so referred in course of argument of the Customs Act and the General Clauses Act are quoted below for ready reference: Customs Act, 1962 Section 110(2)"Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under Cl. (a) of Sec. 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized." Section 124(a)"No order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty". Section 153. Service of order, decision, etc."Any order or decision passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act, shad be served (a) by tendering the order, decision, summons or notice or sending it by registered post to the person for whom it is intended or to his agent; or (b) if the order, decisions, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in Cl. (a), by affixing it on the notice board of the customs house". General Clauses Act, 1897 Sec. 27. Meaning of service by post."Where any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post". 8. 8. By going through the provisions of the above quoted sections it transpires that section 110(2) of the Act relates to the notice to be given under Clause (a) of Section 124 within six months from the date of the seizure and section 153 of the Act relates to the mode of service which reveals that in case of notice that is to be served either by tendering the order, decision or notice or sending it by registered post to the person for whom it is intended and section 27 of the General Clauses Act clarifies the position more incorporating that the service which also includes the expression given or sent shall be deemed to be affected by properly affixing pre-paying and posting by registered post along with a letter containing the document. In this connection, it will not be out of place to mention that in a reported case 1997 (8) S.C.C. 519 (Jeevraj and others vs. Collector of Customs and others) the same view has been taken that issuance of notice under section 124 is not subject to the time limit mentioned in section 110(2) of the Act. In this reported case a reference is also made in detail to 1993(3) S.C.C. 656 (Harbans Lal vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh) 9. Consequently, I find that there is much of strength in the argument so advanced by the learned counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference for quashing the confiscation proceeding. As regards return of goods in the background of the provisions of section 110(2) of the Act for that too since the notice was so despatched under registered cover by correct address to the petitioner within the period of six months, the prayer so made for return of the goods to the petitioner is also not considered. Finding no merit in this writ petition, the same stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty as to take shelter under the provisions of Chapter XV of the Act and if such relief is sought for from the appellate authority of the department and if there is any delay in preferring such appeal the appellate authorities will consider condoning the delay in the background of this writ petition pending.