( 1 ) BY this writ petition mandamus is sought for a direction directing the Collector of Customs, respondents to return Mercedez Benz Car No. BA. A-2976 to the petitioner.

( 2 ) ON 3rd/4th August, 1979, 95 Kilograms of Hashish and Mercedez Car was seized by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The car was driven by one Nepali National Pabitra N. Rana who had stated that he had transported Hashish in the car. Since it was used for smuggling it was liable for confiscation; the car was seized. On 17-1-1980 notice was issued to Rana asking him to show cause as to why the Hashish and the Car be not confiscated. A criminal complaint was also filed on 6-2-1981 under Section 135 of the Customs Act 1962 (to be called the Act ). Rana pleaded guilty on 19-2-1981 and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has come to this court in the present petition on the allegation that he had asked the Collector of Customs by his communication of April and May, 1981 to return the car to him, but had got no response. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the car and Rana was his friend when he had permitted only to use the car. He claims the car to be returned to him.

( 4 ) DURING the proceedings pending in this court a show cause notice dated 24-12-1981 was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962 to the petitioner asking him to show cause why the seized Hashish valued at Rs. l,50,000. 00 should not be confiscated under Section 111 and 115 of the Act.

( 5 ) SOLE point urged by the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Harjinder Singh is that as notice has been issued to the petitioner in December, 1981 which is six month after the seizure of the car which was in August, 1979 no proceedings for confiscation are competent against him and the same, therefore, deserve to be quashed, and the car returned to the petitioner. We cannot agree.

( 6 ) SECTION 110 of the Act empowers the seizure of the goods if the officer has reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation. Sub-section (2) of Section 110 provides that where no notice in respect of seized goods is given under clause (e) of Section 124 of the Act within Six months of seizure of goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whom the same have been seized. Proviso empowers the Collector to extend this period for a period not exceeding 6 months. Section 124 lays down that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made unless the owner of the goods or such person (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a panalty. It is apparent that under Section 110 (2) if no notice is given as provided for under Section 124 within six months the goods have to be returned to the person from whom they were seized. The petitioner cannot take any advantage of this provision because the goods were seized not from him but from somebody else i. e. Rana. Notice had already been served on Rana on 19-1-1980 i. e. within six months. The question, therefore, of returning the seized goods to Rana or to the petitioner without first adjudicating whether the car is liable to be confiscated or not cannot arise. Mr. Harjinder Singh, however, urged that the period of six months provided under Section 110 (2) is to be read also under Section 124 with the result that whenever notice is to be given under Section 124 of the Act whether to the owner or to any person, the same can only be given within six months of the seizure. The result, so says the learned counsel is that if no notice is given within six months of the seizure no proceedings for confiscation can take place. In this connection he seeks to rely upon. The. Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras and another v. T N. Khambati (1977 Cri. L. J. 1331 ). This authority seems to lay down that seizure is necessarily a part of confiscation and there can be no confis