Judgment :- The appellant is the State represented by the Excise Inspector, Trichur. A complaint was filed against the respondent Antony far an offence punishable under S.9(a) of the Opium Act I of 1878. The facts of the case are as follows: Pw 1, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Trichur got information on 21-12-1973 that some poppy capsules had reached the Trichur Railway Station from Madhya Pradesh and that they were kept in the goods shed of that station. He immediately went to that shed and took into custody as per Ext. P1 mahazar 73 bags of poppy capsules and entrusted the same for safe custody to the Railway authorities. Subsequently, on 27121973, 72 bags of poppy capsules arrived at the station and the same were taken into custody as per Ext. P2 mahazar. Three more consignments 160 bags on 71 74,160 bags on 9 174 and 150 bags on 11-1-1974 were taken into custody by pw.1, as per Exts. P3 to P5 mahazars. Each bag contained about 40 Kgs. of poppy capsules The consignments were boarded in the train from Madhya Pradesh and were booked to self at Trichur. Enquires by pw.1 regarding the name and particulars of the consigner did not reveal any results. On 191974 the respondent put in a petition, Ext. P-6 for release of the poppy capsules in his favour claiming that he was the owner thereof Subsequently he sent Ext. P7 notice through a lawyer under S.80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The goods were not released. pw.1, the Excise Circle Inspector suspected that an offence under S.9(a) of the Opium Act had been committed. Samples taken from the consignments were sent for chemical examination. Exts. P8 and P9 are the reports of chemical analysis issued by pw. 6, Chemical Examiner. Ext. P8 stated that the material consisted of incised poppy husks along with "two numbers of unincised Poppy capsules". The sample contained 0.56 per cent by weight of anhydrous morphine. Ext. P9 is to the effect that the material examined thereunder was incised poppy husks. The sample was found to contain 0.11 per cent of anhydrous morphine. A complaint was thereafter filed before the Court. The respondent contended that the consignments were not proved to be of poppy capsules, possession of which alone is an offence under S.9 (a) of the Opium Act. The sample was found to contain 0.11 per cent of anhydrous morphine. A complaint was thereafter filed before the Court. The respondent contended that the consignments were not proved to be of poppy capsules, possession of which alone is an offence under S.9 (a) of the Opium Act. The Chemical Examiner's report only showed that the goods consisted of poppy husks and not poppy capsules. He also denied that he was in possession of the articles consigned. The trial court did not accept the contentions of the respondent and convicted him for offence punishable under S.9 (a) of the Opium Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the respondent was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more An appeal was preferred against the above conviction and sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge. Trichur held that in the absence of evidence regarding the ownership of the goods, the respondent could not be held to be in possess on of the article. The court also held that the goods seized do not fall within the definition of 'Opium' under S.3 (1) of the Act. According to the learned judge, poppy capsules alone would fall under the definition. The court also did not act upon the report of the Chemical Examiner or the evidence of P. W. 6 on the ground that it was not P. W. 6 who analysed the sample. In the light of the above reasoning, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant. The present appeal is filed challenging the order of acquittal. 2. S.3 of the Opium Act defines 'Opium'. In the light of the above reasoning, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant. The present appeal is filed challenging the order of acquittal. 2. S.3 of the Opium Act defines 'Opium'. "Unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context "opium" means (i) the capsules of the poppy (Papavar somniferum L.), whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered, and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom; (ii) the spontaneously coagulated juice of such capsules which has not been submitted to any manipulations other than those necessary for packing and transport; and (iii) any mixture, with or without neutral materials, of any of the above forms of opium but does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.2 per cent of morphine, or a manufactured drug as defined in S.2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 (2) of S 4 prohibits possession etc of opium except as provided therein. S.5, 8 and 13 deal with the rule-making powers of the State Government. S.9 provides the penalty for illegal possession etc. of opium. In exercise of the powers conferred under the Act, rules have been framed by the Kerala State Government under S.5 and 13 of the Act in the year 1958. 3. The points involved in this appeal are: whether the article seized in the instant case was prohibited opium and; (i) whether the respondent was in possession of the opium, While the State would contend that the goods seized by pw.1 was opium falling within the definition of the Act, the respondent's case is that the article seized was not opium but only poppy husks. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on two decisions of the Punjab High Court, State v. Sohan Lal (AIR. 1956 Punjab 159) and Gujar Singh Mangal Singh v. State (AIR. 1958 Punjab 77) for holding that the article seized in the instant case is not opium. Both these cases, refer to transactions which took place prior to the amendment of the Opium Act by Central Act 52 of 1957. Prior to the amendment, the term'opium' stood only to capsules of the poppy. The words "whether in the original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom" were added to the definition by the Amending Act of 1957. Prior to the amendment, the term'opium' stood only to capsules of the poppy. The words "whether in the original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom" were added to the definition by the Amending Act of 1957. The decisions referred to have no relevancy in respect of transactions after the amendment. The learned Sessions Judge also refused to follow the ruling in Fauja Singh v. The State (1962 (1) Crl. Q. 840) which has reference to S.3 of the Act after the amendment. The learned judge was under the mistaken impression that Act 52 of 1957 is a local amendment confined to Punjab. It is true that the Punjab Government amended the Punjab Opium 0.1956 by substituting the existing clause by a fresh one, and under the substituted clause, "the expression 'poppy head' means the capsules of poppy (Papavar somniferum L.) whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom." The change was effected only to make the definition of poppy heads in conformity with the amended definition of the word 'opium'. There is no scope for doubt that poppy bead comes within the definition of opium in the Opium Act as amended by Act 57 of 1957. The amendment being by a Central Act has force of law in the Kerala State also. 4. Exts. P8 and P9, the certificates of the Chemical Examiner show that the sample sent to him took in incised poppy husk and also unincised poppy capsules. pw 6 would say in his evidence that poppy husks found were broken capsules. They are described as husks because the capsules were dried and broken. Otherwise they are called poppy capsules. He would also say that poppy husks could be called poppy heads also. pw. 6 further stated that the juice had not been extracted from the poppy husks in the sample and that both husks and poppy capsules contained morphine The appellate judge refused to act upon Exts. P8 and P9 and the evidence of pw. 6 on the ground that Pw. 6, the Chemical Examiner did not himself conduct the analysis. It appears that the appellate judge was under the impression that the testimony of pw. 6 could be acted upon only in case he himself did the analysis. P8 and P9 and the evidence of pw. 6 on the ground that Pw. 6, the Chemical Examiner did not himself conduct the analysis. It appears that the appellate judge was under the impression that the testimony of pw. 6 could be acted upon only in case he himself did the analysis. The court overlooked the provisions of S.293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 2 of 1974). Under S.293(3), when an expert is summoned it is not incumbent that he himself should appear. Any officer who is working with him conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court can be deputed on his behalf. pw. 6 is the Chemical Examiner. The samples were examined by his subordinates under his supervision. The tests were conducted under his directions. He had himself verified the results. There is no reason why his evidence should not be acted upon. Mention may be made to the case Mangaldas v. Maharashtra State (1966 SC 128), a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Supreme Court held: "It is not incumbent on the Public Analyst to undertake the analysis himself and it is quite sufficient if he gets it done under bis supervision." The identical principle applies in the instant case Exts. P8 and P9 and the evidence of pw. 6 lead only to the conclusion that the article seized was opium within the definition of the term in S.3(1). 5. The further question is whether the possession of the goods is an offence under the Opium Act. Under S.4, possession of opium is an offence only if it is in contravention of the Opium Act or other Acts relating to opium and Rules framed under such Acts the rules framed under Ss 5 and 13 of the Opium Act permit possession of raw opium and op urn mixture only under licence issued thereunder. Raw opium is defined as meaning (1) capsules of poppy (Papavar Somniform L) and spontaneously coagulated juice of such capsules which has not been submitted to any manipulations other than those necessary for packing and transport. Although the rules direct generally for licence for possession of opium, there is an exemption provided in R.27. Raw opium is defined as meaning (1) capsules of poppy (Papavar Somniform L) and spontaneously coagulated juice of such capsules which has not been submitted to any manipulations other than those necessary for packing and transport. Although the rules direct generally for licence for possession of opium, there is an exemption provided in R.27. R.27 reads: "Capsules of the Poppy (Papavar Somniform L) which have been lanced and dried or from which juice has been extracted may be possessed, transported, sold, imported and exported by any person without restriction." This means that possession of lanced and dried poppy capsules is not prohibited. From the evidence of pw. 6, poppy husks are dried and crushed poppy capsules and, therefore, they come under the exemption. No offence is, therefore, committed in respect of the goods which consisted of poppy husks alone. At the same time poppy capsules not lanced and dried do not fall under the exception. Ext. P8 shows that the sample took in unincised poppy capsules also. The evidence of pw. 6 is that from the unincised poppy capsules, juice had not been extracted. Whoever is in possession of such capsules commits an offence if he does not have a lience for such possession. The samples taken by pw.1 thus include goods containing unincised poppy capsules, not exempted under Rule XXVII. The person in possession of such goods must be held to have committed an offence for which the penalty is provided in S.9 of the Act. 6. The further question is whether the respondent herein can be said to have been in possession of the poppy capsules As already stated, the article was received at the Trichur Railway station as "self-booked" from Madhya Pradesh. The person who booked the same is not identified. The trial court convicted the respondent for possession of the goods placing reliance on the admissions made in Exts. P6 and P7. In neither of these documents has the respondent admitted that it was he who booked the goods from Madhya Pradesh. What is stated therein is that the railway receipts had been duly endorsed in his favour for taking delivery from the railway station. A railway receipt may be a document of title to goods An endorsement thereof may authorise the possessor of the document to receive goods referred to therein. What is stated therein is that the railway receipts had been duly endorsed in his favour for taking delivery from the railway station. A railway receipt may be a document of title to goods An endorsement thereof may authorise the possessor of the document to receive goods referred to therein. But an endorsement on the railway receipt need not always amount to transfer of the property in the goods covered by the receipt. In the instant case, the railway receipts or the endorsements thereon are not in evidence. The endorsements mentioned in Exts P6 andP7 need not mean that the respondent was in possession of the goods. It could as well be that they conferred on the respondent only the right to take possession of the goods. It follows that the appellant has not established that the goods were in the possession of the respondent. An offence punishable under S.9(a) of the Opium Act, is, therefore, not made out as against the respondent. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed From the foregoing paragraphs, it is clear that an offence has been committed in respect of the opium which is the subject matter of the case, but that the offender has not been identified. S.12 of the Opium Act provides for disposal of property in such cases. The relevant portion reads: "12. Order of confiscation by whom to be made When an offence against this Act has been committed, but the offender is not known or cannot be found, or when opium not in the possession of any person cannot be satisfactorily accounted for, the case shall be enquired into and determined by the Collector of the district or Deputy Commissioner, or by any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, either personally or in right of his office, who may order such confiscation. Provided that no such order shall be made until the expiration of one month from the date of seizing the things intended to be confiscated or without hearing the persons (if any; claiming any right thereto, and the evidence (if any) which they produce in support of their claims." The direction made by the Additional Sessions Judge to release the seized articles to the respondent on his proving ownership is not in accordance with the above provision and will, therefore, stand set aside. The trial court will pass fresh orders regarding disposal of the article in conformity with S.12 of the Opium Act and the rules framed by the Government under the Act.