A Truck No. LEE 8359 belonging to Mohd. Nawaz petitioner, has been allegedly involved in the transport of 90 bags of Basmati rice from Khankah Dogran District Sheikhupura to Sukheki District Gujranwala, contrary-to the provision contained in sec--tion 3 of West Pakistan Supplementary Paddy and Rice Control Order, 1958, which is made punishable under section 6 (1) of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs Control Act. Bashir Ahmad, its driver, and Aziz, the Cleaner, who were caught by the Police Party on picket duty neat Sukheki Railway crossing on the night between the 7th and 8th of August 1968, were challaned by the Police and were convicted by the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 11-1-FO In the concluding paragraph of the judgment an order-was also made that Truck No. LEE 8359 belonging to the petitioner stood forfeited to the Government.
2. The two convicts, namely, Bashir Driver and Aziz Cleaner who were sentenced to two years R. I, each, filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed by his order dated 15-5-69.
3. However; during the pendency of this appeal Mohd. Nawaz petitioner filed two applications before the Additional Sessions Judge claiming temporary custody of Truck on Superdari in the first instance till the decision of the appeal and for its permanent custody challenging the very legality of the order of forfeiture. It appears, that the Additional Sessions Judge did not pass any formal order on these applications while dismissing the appeal filed by the convicts, namely Bashir Driver and Aziz Cleaner.
4. Feeling aggrieved Mohd. Nawaz has filed the present Cr. Revision in this Court. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no order for the confiscation of the Truck could be made under section 6(2) of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs Control Act, unless he as owner could be deemed to have been posted with the knowledge or had reasons to believe That his Truck used in this committed contravention.
5. There is obviously considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel. The relevant provision contained in section 6(2) reads as follows :- "(2) The owner of any vessel, conveyance or animal carrying any property in respect of which an order under section 3 is contravened, shall, if the carrying is part of the transaction involving the contravention and if he knew or had reason to believe that the contravention was being committed, be deemed to have contravened the order, and, in addition to the punish--ment to which he is liable under subsection (1), the vessel con--veyance or animal shall when the order provides forfeiture of the property in respect of which the order is contravened, be forfeited to the Government.
6. From the above provision it is abundantly clear that in order to justify the forfeiture of the Truck three legal requirements had to be fulfilled firstly, that the truck should be established to have been used in the transportation of rice in contravention of the law; secondly the impugned carrying should form a part of the transaction involving the contravention and thirdly, that the owner of the truck should have or have had reason to believe that a contravention was being so committed through the employment of this truck. When these three legal requirements are satisfied, two sequences would flow therefrom firstly, the owner even though not personally present at the spot or being directly involved in the illegal transport of rice would be notionally deemed to have committed an offence and would be liable under subsection (1) of section 6 ; secondly, ill addition to this punishment his truck would also be liable to forfeiture.
7. In the instant case admittedly the petitioner was not sent up by the police either as having been directly involved in using his truck in the illegal transport of rice from one controlled area to another controlled area or having been deemed to be posted with the necessary knowledge or belief that through the employment of his truck such a contravention was being committed. Again no finding to this effect was made by the learned trial Magistrate. It would, thus, inevitably be clear from this that the order regarding the confiscation of the truck was patently illegal and without jurisdiction. If an authority is needed, Saeed Khan v. The State (P.L D 1962 Lab. 122) which appears to be directed with full force with the facts of .The instant case, may be cited in point.
8. The up shot of the discussion, therefore, is that the order regarding the forfeiture of the truck is set aside and it is directed that the same be handed over to Mohd. Nawaz petitioner who is admittedly its owner.