Knowledge of smuggled goods is required before confiscating a hired taxi or penalising its driver.

Confiscation of a hired public taxi and penalty on its driver were unsustainable where the vehicle was ordinarily available for hire and no material showed knowledge or reasonable belief that the goods carried were smuggled. The driver could not realistically be expected to inspect passenger luggage or verify the legal character of the goods absent any suspicious circumstance. In the absence of evidence that the owner or driver knew of the smuggled nature of the fabrics, the confiscation and personal penalty failed. The impugned order was set aside and relief followed for the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the taxi and the personal penalty imposed on the driver were sustainable when the vehicle was a public taxi hired for transport and there was no material to show knowledge of smuggling.

Analysis: The taxi was held to be a public vehicle ordinarily available for hire, and it was found impracticable to expect the driver to inspect passenger luggage and verify the legal character of the goods in the absence of any circumstance creating suspicion. The record contained no material showing that either the owner or the driver, being the person in charge of the vehicle, knew that the fabrics were smuggled goods.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the taxi and the imposition of penalty were held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation of a hired public and penalty on its driver are not sustainable in the absence of evidence showing knowledge or reasonable basis to believe that the goods carried were smuggled.

---