JUDGMENT

Tee Ah Sing J:

In this appeal the appellant was charged for the following offences:

1. Bahawa kamu pada 20.9.1995 jam lebih kurang pukul 1815 hrs. di KM 64, Jalan Bintulu/Sibu, Bintulu sebagai pemandu sebuah lori balak yang berdaftar nombor SE 5092Q telah memandu kenderaan tersebut di atas jalanraya dengan tiada cukai jalan, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 15(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 119(2) Akta yang sama .

2. Bahawa kamu pada 20.9.1995, jam lebih kurang pukul 1815 hrs. di KM 64, Jalan Bintulu/Sibu, Bintulu sebagai pemandu sebuah lori balak yang berdaftar nombor SE 5092Q telah memandu kenderaan tersebut di atas jalanraya dengan tiada dilindungi insuran polisi, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 90(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 90(2) Akta yang sama .

3. Bahawa kamu pada 20.9.1995 jam lebih kurang pukul 1815 hrs. di KM 64, Jalan Bintulu/Sibu, Bintulu sebagai pemandu sebuah lori balak yang berdaftar nombor SE 5092Q telah memandu kenderaan tersebut di atas jalanraya dengan membawa muatan kayu balak lima belas batang tanpa permit, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 34(1) Akta Lembaga Perlesenan Kenderaan Perdagangan 1987 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen tersebut akta yang sama.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the three charges. He was convicted and sentenced. The lorry registration No. SE 5092Q was forfeited.

The appellant in this appeal was dissatisfied with the order of forfeiture and disposal of the timber lorry bearing registration No. SE 5092Q made by the Learned Magistrate and appealed against the forfeiture and disposal.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before ordering forfeiture of the said logging truck, the Learned Magistrate has failed to enquire who is the true owner of the said logging truck and that the true owner thereof was not given an opportunity to be heard. In support the following authorities were cited namely:

(a) Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd. v. PP [1968] 2 MLJ 196.

(b) Kiaw Aik Hang Co. Ltd. v. PP [1962] 28 MLJ 276.

(c) PP v. Lim Hock Seng [1962] 28 MLJ 398

The true owner of the said logging truck is Shin Jang Sdn. Bhd.

The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Learned Magistrate erred in law in determining that order of forfeiture is a mandatory requirement under s. 51(3) of the Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987 ('the Act') .

It was further submitted that the Learned Magistrate has failed to take into consideration that the said logging truck is not a commercial vehicle within the definition of the Act.

The learned Senior Federal Counsel for the respondent submitted that s. 51(3) of the Act provided for mandatory forfeiture of vehicle provided that two conditions have been complied with. First the vehicle must be seized by a police officer with the rank of Inspector. Secondly the accused is convicted under s. 33 or 34 of the Act . So it is his submission that once the two conditions have been satisfied the forfeiture will follow after conviction and inquiry before the forfeiture is unnecessary. The case of Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd. v. PP [1968] 2 MLJ 196 was distinguished.

He also submitted that the lori balak is a commercial vehicle.

In reply the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that forfeiture is not mandatory. In support the case of BBMB Kewangan Berhad v. Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan Negeri Johor Darul Takzim & Anor [1994] 1 CLJ 497 was cited.

I shall first deal with the issue whether the said timber lorry bearing registration No. SE 5092Q is a goods vehicle under s. 34(1) of the Act .

In s. 2 of the Act , "commercial vehicle" includes public service vehicles and goods vehicles; "goods" means anything, including livestock carried on or in a motor vehicle for the purpose of any trade or business but does not include:

(a) equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle;

(b) articles of merchandise