Prima facie material sustains confiscation notice for alleged antiquities; criminal quashment does not stop independent customs adjudication.

A show cause notice for confiscation of coins alleged to be antiquities was valid where the authorities had sufficient prima facie material, including the archaeologist's report and the coins' age and historical character; a prior final report under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 was not required before notice under the Customs Act. Quashing of the criminal complaint did not bar confiscation adjudication, because criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings operate independently under the relevant statutes. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the confiscation proceedings were permitted to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 for proposed confiscation of seized coins as antiquities was invalid for want of a prior final report under Section 24 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972; (ii) Whether quashing of the criminal complaint affected the maintainability of confiscation proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 for proposed confiscation of seized coins as antiquities was invalid for want of a prior final report under Section 24 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits export prohibition of antiquities under Section 3 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 and makes the Customs Act applicable to such goods under Section 4. For issuance of a show cause notice, the Collector need not wait for the final determination by the Director General under Section 24. The relevant test is whether there was sufficient material to form a bona fide prima facie belief that the goods were liable to confiscation. The report of the Superintending Archaeologist and the age and historical character of the coins provided such material.

Conclusion: The notice was valid and the absence of a prior final report under Section 24 did not vitiate it, against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether quashing of the criminal complaint affected the maintainability of confiscation proceedings.

Analysis: Criminal prosecution and confiscation adjudication operate in different fields. The setting aside of the criminal complaint did not determine the legality of the confiscation process, which is governed by the Customs Act and the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act. The adjudication for confiscation could continue independently of the criminal case.

Conclusion: The quashing of the criminal complaint did not bar the confiscation proceedings, against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the validity of the show cause notice and held that the confiscation proceedings could proceed independently, leading to dismissal of the writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice for confiscation may be issued on the basis of sufficient prima facie material without awaiting the final expert determination contemplated by the special statute, and criminal proceedings do not control independent confiscation adjudication.

---