P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

Petitioner in Person. S. Usman Ali Shah for Respondent. Date of hearing : 13th March 1959. This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, dated 1‑8‑1957, by which he maintained the order of the Magistrate dated 21‑1‑1957, by which a car, belonging to the petitioner was confiscated under section 11 of the Opium Act. The facts of the case are that on 27‑6‑1956, 5 maunds, 7 seers and 12 chittanks of opium was found in a car numbered F. P. H.

809. At the time of the recovery of this contraband opium from this car two women, Mst. Sultana and Mst. Zarbaha were sitting in it. They were convicted of the offence under section 9 of the Opium Act and were sentenced to two years' R. I. each. The opium and the car were confiscated under section 11 of the Opium Act. Along with those two women one Arsala was also tried on the allegation that he was the driver of the car, but that charge was not proved against him and he was acquitted. Libab Gul was found to be the owner of this car. He appeared as a witness and stated that the car was his property, he wanted to send it to Dera Ghazi Khan and had engaged Arsala Khan as his driver. He instead of driving this car to Dera Ghazi Khan allowed it to be used by these women. He had no knowledge that this car employed for carrying contraband opium. The only ground on which the learned counsel for Libab Gul has challenged the order of confiscation in this Court is that the contraband opium was placed in his car without his knowledge. In my view this is not a valid ground for releasing the car from confiscation. Confiscation can be imposed under section 11 of the Opium Act upon animals and conveyance used in carrying the contra band. It is true that in a case where the owner of the car is unaware that his car would be used by his driver or borrowers for illicit purposes, confiscation will impose a great hardship on him. But such hardship is the creation of law. In the language of section 11 of the Opium Act, there is no suggestion that animals and conveyance should be confiscated only if they are the property of the offender, or they are found to have been used in the commission of the offence with the owner's know ledge or consent. The language of section 11 of the Opium Act says that any animal or conveyance used for carrying opium shall be liable to confiscation without regard to the fact whether it belongs to the offender or trot, or whether the owner of it, if he is other than the offender had consented to its use in carrying the contraband. In re G. N. Chakrapaney Chettiar & Sons (A I R 1942 Mad. 724), was cited to show that where the owner has no knowledge that the car would be used for carrying contraband opium, order of confiscation is liable to be set aside. I am of opinion that where it is established that the owner of the car is aware that the car will be used for carrying contraband opium, the owner becomes an abetter in the offence and liable to punish ment like the offender. In that event it is not only the car which becomes liable to confiscation, but the owner of the car is also liable to be convicted, because in allowing his car to be used for carrying contraband opium, he facilitates the com mission of the offence. It is not in my view correct to read something in section 11 of the Opium Act which is not there, and to lay down that confiscation should be ordered only if the owner's knowledge that the conveyance would be used for illegal purpose is established. The law as laid down in section 11 of the Opium Act is amply clear. A conveyance used for carrying contraband opium is liable to confiscation, to whomsoever it may belong, and not only when the owner himself is the offender, or where the owner's knowledge that his car would be used for carrying, contraband opium is established. This revision applica tion is dismissed. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.