JUDGMENT 1. The order of the Deputy Magistrate of Baraset, dated the 31st August 1903, convicting the accused under sec. 9 of Act I of 1878 and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 40 each in default 3 months' rigorous imprisonment each and also directing the boat in which the contraband opium was found and which belonged to the lessees under the French Government to be confiscated under sec. 11 of Act I of 1878 be reversed for the reasons set forth, the fines refunded and the boat restored to the possession of the lessees of the French authorities. Seven persons, of whom Chedi Mala is one, have been convicted under sec. 9 of the Opium Act of 1878 read with Rule 4 of the Rules under the same Act, of possessing more than five tolas of opium. They have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 40 with 3 months' rigorous imprisonment in default. The opium and the boat in which it was found have been forfeited. The case has been referred to us by the Sessions Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs for the reasons stated in the Letter of Reference. 2. The facts of the case are pretty clear, and for present purposes it is enough to say that 50 tolas of opium were found in a boat of which Chedi was the master and the other accused the crew ; there is nothing to show how the opium came to be on the boat, and there is no evidence that Chedi or any of the crew knew that it was there. 3. The only difficulty about the case seems to us to arise from the manner in which sec. 10 of the Opium Act is drafted. Taken as it stands the section is difficult of application, it must however clearly be read as providing that opium in respect of which it is to be presumed that the accused has committed an offence, must be opium in the possession of the accused. It is also plain the possession need not be to the knowledge of the accused otherwise the section would not be necessary. The section is a penal one and must therefore be read plainly, and the plain meaning is that if excessive opium is found in a man's possession he is liable to be punished unless he is able to account for it satisfactorily. 4. The section is a penal one and must therefore be read plainly, and the plain meaning is that if excessive opium is found in a man's possession he is liable to be punished unless he is able to account for it satisfactorily. 4. In whose possession is the opium is the main question in the present case. We can have no doubt that it is in possession of Chedi who is in possession of the boat as manjhi. The boat may be to some extent in the possession of the crew, since they with Chedi certainly control its movements. But we cannot see how they can be in possession of the cargo which they presumably have no right to handle except by Chedi's orders, though they were concerned in or connected with the transit thereof. We therefore hold that Chedi was in possession of the opium, his knowledge of its existence is, as we have said, immaterial to his guilt. The manner in which he accounted for the possession of the opium has been considered unsatisfactory, and we see no reason for considering it otherwise. 5. The learned Sessions Judge considers that Chedi's possession is satisfactorily accounted for by the fact that he is a common carrier. Even if this is so we fail to see what difference it can make. As we read sec. 10 it certainly contains no reservation in favour of common carriers, and we know of no authority for saying that a common carrier is exempted from the provisions of such an enactment as sec. 10 which is of a character that is exceptional, but by no means uncommon. One of the objects of such enactments is to induce persons like carriers, e.g., vendors of easily adulterated or dangerous good, to exercise special vigilance in carrying on their business and this would apply as much to a common carrier as to a carrier under a special contract. The possible extensions of the penal provisions of the Opium Act are matters that do not concern us at present and cannot affect the construction to be put on an enactment of a well-known type. We accordingly decline to interfere with the conviction in the case of Chedi. The possible extensions of the penal provisions of the Opium Act are matters that do not concern us at present and cannot affect the construction to be put on an enactment of a well-known type. We accordingly decline to interfere with the conviction in the case of Chedi. But in the absence of proof of any knowledge of his possession on his part the sentence passed on him is too severe, and we reduce the fine to be paid by him to one of Rs. 5, in default a week's rigorous imprisonment. The amount of any fine paid by him in excess of Rs. 5 must be refunded. We set aside the convictions and sentences passed on the rest of the accused on the ground that they were not in possession of the opium. Any fines paid by them must be refunded, the forfeiture of the boat seems to us uncalled for; no improper conduct has ever been imputed to her owners. We therefore set aside the Magistrate's order relating to such forfeiture.