JUDGMENT 1. No one appears at the hearing of this rule. A rule was Issued on the District Magistrate to show cause why the order confiscating the boat in the absence of the 5th Petitioner, Golap Saha, and no cause being shown by him, should not be set aside. For the purpose of the present rule we need not say more than that the 5th Petitioner was not tried as one of the co-accused in the case, under the Excise Act, instituted by Abdul Gani against Ramjiban and others. The French liquor was found in the boat of the 5th Petitioner, and under sec. 75 of Act VII (B.C.) 1878, when any articles liable to confiscation under this Act are seized, the vessels, packages and coverings In which they are contained, and the animals and conveyances used in carrying them shall also be liable to seizure and confiscating. As we read the section, it empowers the Court to confiscate the Petitioners' boat, but as a matter of sound judicial discretion such an order should not be passed, in the absence of the owner of the boat. We would go a little further and say that unless the owner was in some way implicated in the offence under the Excise law, he should not be deprived of his property; otherwise, if the principle be disregarded, the discovery of a small quantity of opium on board an ocean steamer would render that vessel liable to confiscation under the Act. This, of course, is not to be thought of, and such a remote liability is clearly beyond the scope of sec. 75. 2. There is nothing in the evidence, or in the judgment of the trying Court, which justifies the confiscation of the Petitioners' boat. We accordingly set aside that order. The Petitioner will be entitled to recover the boat on due application being made.