Rigby J:

The appellant in this case was convicted by the learned President of the Sessions Court, sitting at Georgetown, Penang, on two charges preferred against him of offences contrary to the provisions of ss. 131(1)(g) and 131(1)(d) of the Customs Ordinance, 1952. Upon conviction he was fined the sum of $5,000 on the 1st charge and $1 on the 2nd charge. The learned President, as, indeed, he was bound to do consequent upon the convictions, further ordered the forfeiture of the 150,000 Indonesian rupiahs and the sampan used in the commission of the offences.

The appellant now appeals against the convictions and sentences and the order of forfeiture made in respect of the 150,000 rupiahs. There is also a petition by one Aman, the Indonesian registered owner of the sampan, against the order of forfeiture of the sampan.

The particulars of the charges preferred against the appellant were as follows:

(1) "That you at about 9.45 p.m. on 8 September 1957 on board sampan SI No. 407 in Penang Harbour, Penang, were knowingly concerned in an attempt to export prohibited goods, to wit, Indonesian currency to the total face value of 150,000 rupiahs, such goods being goods the export of which is prohibited, except with the permission of the Controller of Foreign Exchange, under s. 25(1) of the Exchange Control Ordinance, 1953, and thereby committed an offence under s. 131(1)(g) of the Customs Ordinance, 1952, and punishable under s. 131(1)(iii) of the Customs Ordinance, 1952.

(2) "That you, Hoesin bin Ghani, taikong of Sumatran sampan Sl No. 407 at about 9.45 p.m. on 8 September 1957 in Penang Harbour, Penang, did knowingly harbour uncustomed goods, to wit, Indonesian currency to the total face value of 150,000 rupiahs on board the said sampan and thereby committed an offence under s. 131(1)(d) of the Customs Ordinance, 1952 and punishable under s. 131(1)(ii) of the Customs Ordinance, 1952.

It was agreed by Counsel at the outset of this appeal that the use of the words "uncustomed goods" in the 2nd charge was incorrect and that what, in fact, was meant was "prohibited goods". Mr. Hume, for the appellant, stated that he took no point on the error made.

The facts of the case were virtually undisputed and are briefly as follows:

At about 9.45 p.m. on the 8 September 1957 Customs Revenue Officers in the vicinity of the Malay Street Ghaut, Penang, were attracted by the sound of a motor sampan. They duly hailed and boarded the sampan. The port clearance papers dated the 7 September 1957 and issued by the Penang Customs authorities under s. 35 of the Customs Ordinance, stated that the vessel was sailing under Indonesian colours bound for an Indonesian port, and gave the date of departure as "7 September 1957 at p.m.". The occupants of the sampan consisted of the taikong or master, who is, in fact, the present appellant, and a crew of four. Apart from the taikong and crew of four the vessel contained a quantity of cloth and other things, all of which were found to be covered by export permits. The taikong and crew were asked if they had any Indonesian currency and they replied in the negative. A search of the vessel revealed two tins concealed in part of the bow of the ship. The tins were found to contain what appeared to be Indonesian currency notes. The taikong at first denied both ownership and knowledge of the notes, but subsequently admitted that the money was his and that the tins contained 150,000 rupiahs Indonesian currency. This was checked and found to be exactly correct.

On these facts the master and crew were jointly charged with being knowingly concerned in an attempt to export prohibited goods, to wit, Indonesian currency to the total value of 150,000 rupiahs, such goods being goods the export of which is prohibited, except with the permission of the Controller of Foreign Exchange, under s. 25(1) of the Exchange Control Ordinance. A further charge was preferred against the appellant of knowingly harbouring uncustomed