B. K. MEHTA, J.:- This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise at Baroda, dated nil October, 1969 confiscating the Indian currency to the tune of Rs.51,000/- under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said order came to be passed in the following circumstances:-

The petitioner is a businessman dealing in silver and gold articles at Bombay. He had gone to Daman on August 22, 1968 and carried with him a sum of Rs.51,000/- and odd in cash. It is said that he had gone to Daman for purposes of finding out a suitable premises and for purchasing certain utility articles said to be available in Daman against the bills. But as he could not find any suitable property, nor he could purchase any utility articles against the bills, he was returning from Daman on August 24, 1968 at about 10-30 P.M. in an hired private car bearing No.BMZ-4935 belonging to one Bhaskerrao Manchharam. There were two other persons travelling in the said car from Daman to Vapi. As the car approached Kunta cross-road, a Customs raiding party stopped the car as the raiding party found the movements of the car to be suspicious and on the search of the car, a sum of Rupees 51,000/- was found from under the driver's seat. After making a panchnama, the said amount was seized and the statements of the driver of the car and two other persons as well as of the petitioner were recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Customs Mr. Samuel. The statement of the petitioner was recorded in English and the statements of three other persons were recorded in Gujarati. On February 17, 1969, a show cause notice bearing No. VIII 10.1355.68-6884 dated February 14, 1969, issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Surat, was served on the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon by the said notice that as it appeared to the Assistant Collector that the Indian currency of Rs.51,000/- seized from the car was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods and hence, was liable for confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act of 1962, and whereas it further appeared to the Assistant Collector that the petitioner was a person dealing in the goods of foreign origin abovesaid, knowing or having reason to believe that the said articles were liable to be confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962, he should show cause why a penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 112(b)(ii) of the said Act and also to show cause why the Indian currency should not be confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was also required to inform the authorities, whether he wanted a personal hearing in the matter. The documents listed in the Annexure-'A' to the said notice were said to have been supplied to the petitioner. On the receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner filed his written explanation by his statement of March 18, 1969, contending, inter alia, that the notice issued by the Assistant Collector was without jurisdiction and without application of mind to the facts of the case and denying that the amount seized from the car on August 24, 1968, represented the sale proceeds of smuggled goods at all as alleged. It was further denied by the petitioner that he was the person dealing with the goods of foreign origin as alleged in the notice. The petitioner made a specific grievance that no statements as shown in the Annexure to the said notice were supplied to him. It was further pointed out in the explanation in terms that the petitioner did not know English and the contents of the statement recorded by the Superintendent Mr. Samuel in English were not explained to him and he, therefore, denied that he had stated in the statement that he threw away the cash under the driver's seat of the car on the car being stooped by the raiding party. His explanation of the possession of such a considerable amount was that he had taken the money from Bombay to Daman and w