JUDGMENT

H.N. Seth, J. - Pratap Narain Agarwal and his mother Smt. Vidya Bai partners of Messrs. Agra Roller Flour Mills, Belanganj, Agra have filed the present writ petition. The residential-cum-business premises belonging to the petitioners was searched by the officials of Customs and Central Excise Department, Agra on 3/4th June, 1969. They seized certain articles and prepared a Panchanama. According to the Panchanama, the seized articles consisted of 13 pieces of gold bullion in the form the crude Lachcha (coil shape) Hansuli and one piece of gold bullion in the shape of a bar. These fourteen pieces of gold were recovered from a safe lying in a room which was jointly used by Sri Pratap Narain Agarwal and his mother. Out of these items, 13 items were of 24 carats purity, whereas the bar was of 20 carats purity. The total weight of these articles was 5593-5 grammes. The petitioners failed to produce any evidence with regard to the lawful purchase acquisition of the said gold. They also failed to produce any permit granted by the Reserve Bank of India for possession of the said gold. They did not produce any evidence to disclose that the said gold had been declared under the provisions of the Gold Control Act. Customs Officials, accordingly, seized the said gold under Sec. 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 as they believed that it had been smuggled in India in contravention of the restrictions imposed on its import under Sec. 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 read with Sec. 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. They also seized it under the provisions of the Gold Control Act, 1968 as the same had not been declared in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Apart from the said gold certain articles of foreign origin, like record changer, air cooler, transistor, radio, tape recorder etc., were also recovered. Sri Pratap Narain failed to produce any evidence for the lawful purchase or acquisition of those articles hence they also seized under Sec. 110 of the Customs Act, under a belief that they had been smuggled into India in contravention of import restrictions.

2. On 29th of May, 1970, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur issued two notices to the petitioners for showing cause against the confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty upon them. The first notice (annexure VII to the writ petition) stated that the petitioners appear to have contravened the provisions of Secs. 8 and 16 (1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 as they were found in possession of 14 items of primary gold weighing 5,593.6 grammes. The gold had been seized under Sec. 66 (1) (a) of the Gold Control Act, under a reasonable belief that the same was being possessed in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 16 (1) of the Gold (Control) Act. The second notice (Annexure VIII to the writ petition) was for taking proceedings for the confiscation of these very items of gold as well as that of other articles of foreign origin like record changer etc. found in petitioners possession, under Sec. 111 of the Customs Act.

3. The two petitioners have now moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. They pray that the respondents be directed to return the gold ornaments and other articles seized by them on 3/4th June, 1969 and to drop the proceedings initiated by them by issuing the two show cause notices dated May 29, 1970.

4. It is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that various items of gold have been seized both under the provisions of the Gold Control Act and the Customs Act. So far as the remaining items alleged to be of foreign origin are concerned they have been seized only under the provisions of the Customs Act.

5. Sri S. N. Kacker appearing for the petitioners, contended that the proceeding; for confiscation of the articles mentioned in the two notices have not been initiated within a period of six months from the date of their seizure. Extension of period of six months for retention of goods under the provis