Murray-Aynsley CJ:

The facts of the case are peculiar.The appellant-accused was unrepresented.He did not cross-examine any witnesses but called as a witness a former police officer who had been called for the prosecution.From what this witness said it would appear that the appellant had acted as an informer before the offence was committed and drove the principal offender and his chandu at the direction of this police officer. I think that the matter should be cleared up. If the story is true the appellant was only guilty, if at all, in a purely technical sense.

As regards the order for forfeiture, I think that the learned district Judge misdirected himself.The relevant words are "knowledge, consent or connivance" and I consider that Seah Choon Yong was the owner for the purposes of the enquiry. I do not think that negligence is a ground for forfeiture unless there is knowledge, consent or connivance.

Retrial ordered.