The two Accused had been convicted of unlawfully hunting game. The value of weapons and vehicle used in the commission of the offence exceeded the civil jurisdiction of a Subordinate Court, which accordingly referred the question of forfeiture of these articles to the High Court. The District Commissioner who convicted the Accused in the Subordinate Court was no longer available. The Accused, who were residents of South Africa, had been given notice to show cause before the High Court why the articles should not be declared forfeit to the State, but they did not appear to do so. The Court held that the value of the articles seized was not relevant to the question of forfeiture and the question of forfeiture should not therefore have been referred to the High Court. But as the judicial officer was no longer available the High Court's revisional powers conferred by Section 78 of Cap. 5 were sufficient to enable the High Court to deal with the matter. One of the objects of forfeiture was to inhibit the commission of a further offence with the seized articles and in the circumstances of this case no grounds existed for the exercise of the Court's discretion in favour of forfeiture. But in view of the failure of the Accused to take any practical steps to recover their property the Court declined to make any special order under Section 317 (1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Proclamation. If therefore the Accused should fail within 3 months to apply to the Court for the return of the articles they would vest in the State.