JUDGMENT 1. - On August 21, 1992, a preventive party comprising of N.L. Rai,lnspector (PW 8), Mohan Lal, driver (PW 1), Bajrang Lal (PW 2), Zaheen Ahmed (PW 7), Shankar Singh and Behari Singh, Sepoy, and headed by Anand Singh, Distt. Opium Officer, Kota, of the Central Bureau of Narcotics, Rajasthan Unit, was stationed at Toll Tax Check Post out-side the city of Kota (Rajasthan) on the Kota-Bundi Road..At about 5.00 p.m. Karnail Singh appellant, driving truck No. P.C.T. 9997, reached the check-post and on being given a signal by the witnesses stopped the vehicle. Balvender Singh, a body below 16 years of age and against whom report was separately made before the Children Court, Kota, was also there in the truck. He used to work as 'Khalasi' of the vehicle. The vehicle was loaded with cartons containing 'Purchooni' goods. On being questioned by Nand Lal Inspector, Karnail Singh appellant became somewhat nervous. The Inspector became suspicious of the contents of the vehicle. Since it had started raining and there was no proper place to keep the unloaded goods of the vehicle, the witnesses along with PW 3 Onkar and PW 9 Rain Lal, the two independent witnesses procured from a tea-stall at the check- post,took the vehicle and Karnail Singh appellant and Balvender Singh 'Khalasi' to the Control Room in the City. The truck was unloaded. Placed below the cartons were found three gunny bags, containing 21 rexine bags. The contents of the rexine bags were suspected as narcotic substance, i.e. Opium. Nand Lal Inspector, therefore, prepared six samples, two each from the contents of the three bags, and completed all other necessary formalities. He submitted the relevant documents, prepared by him, along with his report to his immediate superior officer, Shri Rama Shankar Prasad, Superintendent, Central Excise (Narcotics)(PW 5) registered a case under sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act') and handed over the investigation to Shiv Narain Inspector (PW 6). The seized material and the sealed samples were kept in the double lock 'Malkhana'. Zaheen Ahmed constable took them to the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Testing Laboratory, Neemuch (M.P.).On conducting Alkaloid and Mecnic acid tests all the three samples, sent to the Laboratory, were found, by qualitative and quantitative analysis, to be of opium, by the Asstt. Chemical Examiner of the Laboratory. Zaheen Ahmed constable took them to the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Testing Laboratory, Neemuch (M.P.).On conducting Alkaloid and Mecnic acid tests all the three samples, sent to the Laboratory, were found, by qualitative and quantitative analysis, to be of opium, by the Asstt. Chemical Examiner of the Laboratory. A complaint for corn mission of offence u/Sees. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act was accordingly filed against Karnail Singh appellant in the concerned Court. On trial of the appellant for the said offence the learned trial Judge held the appellant Karnail Singh guilty of offence a/Sees. 8/18, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs or in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by such judgment and order dated September 5, 1994,made against him by the learned trial Judge in Special Sessions Case No. 8 of 1914, Karnail Singh appellant has preferred S.B. Crl. Appeal No. 4411 of 1994 before this Court. 2. By his impugned judgment and order the learned trial Judge had confiscated truck No. PCT 997, wherein the narcotic drug was being transported. Ballaur Singh appellant is the registered owner of the said vehicle. Aggrieved by the order of confiscation of his vehicle, Bal laur Singh appellant has preferred S.B. Crl. Appeal No. 557 of 1994. 3. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The main order shall be placed on the record of S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 449 of 1994 and a true copy thereof, duly certified as such by the Registry, shall be placed on the record of S.B. Crl. Appeal No. 557/1994, Ballaur Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 4. It was not disputed before me that at the relevant day, time and place truck No. PCT 997, registered in the name of Ballaur Singh, appellant in S.B. Cr. Appeal No.557/ 1994, and being d riven by Karnail Singh appellant at that time, was intercepted by the preventive party comprising of the prosecution witnesses and taken to the control room where on search of the same three gunny bags, containing 21 small rexine bags in all,were discovered from under the cartons loaded in the vehicle. Appeal No.557/ 1994, and being d riven by Karnail Singh appellant at that time, was intercepted by the preventive party comprising of the prosecution witnesses and taken to the control room where on search of the same three gunny bags, containing 21 small rexine bags in all,were discovered from under the cartons loaded in the vehicle. It was also not disputed that on chemical analysis of the samples, taken from three of the rexine bags, those were found of opium. On examining the testimony of PW 8 Nand Lal Inspector, PW 4 Anand Singh Distt. Opium Officer, PW 2 Bajrang Lai and PW 7 Zaheen Ahmed, sepoyees, on the point, I feel satisfied that Karnail Singh appellant had been found transporting the contraband in truck No. PCT 997 at the relevant time, PW3 Onkar La l and PW 9 Ram Lai, the two independent witnesses were though declared hostile yet I find that whereas Onkar Lai had not supported the prosecution case, although he admitted his signature on all the documents prepared by Nand Lal Inspector at the time of seizure of the contraband and arrest of Karnail Singh, Ram Lal had fully corroborated the prosecution case on those points but was declared hostile for the reason that he pleaded loss of memory regarding the observance and compliance of the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act and the rules framed thereunder by the Inspector, though he had stated that the contents of the relevant documents, prepared by the Inspector at that time, were correct. Any way, the factum of seizure of the contraband from the possession of Kamail Singh appellant stands proved beyond doubt by cogent and trustworthy evidence on record and in that behalf I endorse the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. 5. It was, however, urged by Mr. Any way, the factum of seizure of the contraband from the possession of Kamail Singh appellant stands proved beyond doubt by cogent and trustworthy evidence on record and in that behalf I endorse the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. 5. It was, however, urged by Mr. V.R. Bajwa, the learned Counsel for Karnail Singh appellant, that the mandatory provisions contained in Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act were not complied with inasmuch as that the search of the truck PCT 997, which was not a 'public conveyance' for the purposes of application of Section 43 buta private conveyance, was made at the control room after sunset and before sun-rise but no search warrant was obtained by Nand Lal Inspector before effecting the search of the truck or, in any case, he did not record the grounds of his belief for effecting the search without obtaining the search warrant and also failed to send a copy of such grounds to his immediate official superior. According to Mr. Bajwa the provisions contained in Section 42 and not of Section 43 were applicable to the facts in the instant case and since such provisions were not complied with, the trial of the appellant Karnail Singh got vitiated. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Natibabua Khadka v. State of Goa, II (1996) CCR 476 (DB) besides the decision of this Court in the case of Bashir and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, WLC (Raj.) 1997 (1) 102 : 11 (1997) CCR 395 in support of his arguments. On facts of the instant case, I find no force in the arguments advanced. 6. v. State of Rajasthan, WLC (Raj.) 1997 (1) 102 : 11 (1997) CCR 395 in support of his arguments. On facts of the instant case, I find no force in the arguments advanced. 6. Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act empowers officers of the Central Government Border Security Force and State Governments, as mentioned in Sub-section (1), to enter into and search, between sunrise and sunset, any building, conveyance or place in respect of which they have reasons to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken in writing by them that any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, in respect of which an offence punishable under Chapter IV of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act has been committed, or any document or other article, which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence is kept concealed in such building, conveyance or enclosed place. Proviso to Sub-section (1) relaxes the requirement of obtaining a warrant of search or authorisation, if such an attempt on the part of the officer concerned is likely to afford opportunity for the concealment of evidence or may provide facility of the escape of the offender, in which case the concerned officer may enter and search the building, conveyance or the enclosed place at any time between sunset and sun rise but after recording the grounds of his belief. Sub-section (2) casts a duty upon such officers to send a copy of information, reduced in writing as per Section 42(1) or the record of the belief, as referred to in the Proviso to that sub-section, to their immediate official superior. 7. For the applicability of the provisions contained in Sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 it is to be noted that whether the entry into or search of the places mentioned therein is made between sunrise and sunset or between sunset and sunrise such place should be a building, or a conveyance or an enclosed place. The use of the words "building, conveyance or enclosed place" in the language of Section 42 has relevance with and reference to the expression "if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing", used in the main body of Section 42(1). The use of the words "building, conveyance or enclosed place" in the language of Section 42 has relevance with and reference to the expression "if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing", used in the main body of Section 42(1). Reading the said two expressions together it comes out clearly that the provisions contained in Section 42 would apply to those cases of searches in which (1) the officer has reasons to believe either from his personal knowledge or from information given to him by any other person and such information has been taken down in writing by him, that an offence under the Act has been committed and (2) entry into or search is to be effected in any building, conveyance or enclosed place to unearth such offence. The word "conveyance" is required to be read in the sense of the meaning of the words it keeps company with, that is, the words "building" and "enclosed place" preceding to and following it. The building "or the enclosed place" may be private or public places depending upon the facts of a given case. They may be accessible to public at large or restricted in access to licensees or invitees. So would be the case in respect to "conveyance" which finds place" between the two words "building" and "enclosed place" used in the language of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. 8. As against Section 42, as discussed above, Section 43 comes into play when seizure of contraband and arrest of the offender are to be effected in "public places". "Public" place in Clause (a) of Section 43 has been used in the company of the words "in transit". The words "public place" have been given extended meanings in the Explanation below that section so as to include any public conveyance, hotel, shop or other place intended for use by, or accessible to the public. The definition of the term "public place" is inclusive, extending the scope of the said term, and not exclusive so as to restrict the same. The term "public place" used in Clause (a) refers to the immobile conditions of the subject of seizure; the words "in transit" show its mobile condition or its movement. The definition of the term "public place" is inclusive, extending the scope of the said term, and not exclusive so as to restrict the same. The term "public place" used in Clause (a) refers to the immobile conditions of the subject of seizure; the words "in transit" show its mobile condition or its movement. The contraband would be "in transit" when it is being moved or transported by some means, adopted for causing its movement from one place to another. When it is transported through a conveyance, private or public, and such conveyance is parked in the compound of a hotel, shop or other place intended for use by, or accessible to the public or its possessor takes it to those places the officer, talked of in Section 42, may follow it there and arrest the culprit there and such seizure and arrest, to my mind, would fall under section 43 and not under Section 42. It may be noted that the authority of the officer, mentioned in Section 42, to seize the contraband and arrest the accused flows from the warrant issued or authorisation conferred under Section 41 and the possession of information by him, either from his own knowledge or from other person. Section 41 speaks of search of building, conveyance or place. The word "place" used in the language of Section 41 is neither prefixed with the word "enclosed", as has been done in Section 42 nor prefixed by the word "public" as has been done in Section 43. The application of the provisions contained in Sections 42 and 43 would in fact depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. If the information in possession of the officer relates to the keeping of the contraband in "concealed condition" in a building, conveyance or enclosed place Section 42 would stand attracted. But if the contraband is in transit or in a public place as defined in the Explanation below Section 43 which may he having a relation to its being "in transit" the seizure be effected under section 43. But if the contraband is in transit or in a public place as defined in the Explanation below Section 43 which may he having a relation to its being "in transit" the seizure be effected under section 43. The time of availability of the information by the officer and the condition of the contraband, whether "kept concealed in any building,conveyance or enclosed place or "in transit" and in the process of its transportation it is taken to a "public place" within the meaning of the term defined in the Explanation to Section 43, would, I think, decide the applicability of the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 in a case. 9. In the instant case the facts are simple and clear. The vehicle carrying the contraband was intercepted on a public place at toll tax check-post in day time at 5.00 p.m. Since it had started raining and it was the month of August, it had to be taken to the control room and search and seizure proceedings were taken there. The preventive party was stationed at the toll tax check post in the routine course of the discharge of the official duties by its members and not on any specific information regarding commission of an offence against the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act by any particular person. Nand Lal Inspector, had complied with the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act and the rules made thereunder in effecting the seizure of the contraband and arresting the offenders. As soon as search, seizure and arrest proceedings were completed he had duly submitted his report along with the documents prepared by him, the contraband seized and the person arrested, to his officer superior Rama Shanker, who was not there with the preventive party at the time of intercepting the truck and its search. On such facts, which stand fully established on record by cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence led by the prosecution in this case, I find neither any infirmity in the search and seizure proceedings nor any scope of applicability of the provisions contained in Section 42. 10. On such facts, which stand fully established on record by cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence led by the prosecution in this case, I find neither any infirmity in the search and seizure proceedings nor any scope of applicability of the provisions contained in Section 42. 10. In the case before the Bombay High Court a tourist bus belonging to Tourist Service (P) Ltd. in Nepal, in whose favour a tourist peen it for three months had been granted by the Embassy of India, Kathmandu, was noticed parked at the beach at Goa by a Police Inspector attached to Narcotic Cell, Panaji. Nothing was discovered from the person of the appellant, who was the driver of the bus. When the Head Constable was attempting to open the dash board box the appellant therein was stated to have made a disclosure statement under section 27, Evidence Act which allegedly led to the discovery of the contraband from the dash board. It was on such facts that their Lordships of the Bombay High Court held that the expression "any public conveyance" used in the Explanation to Section 43, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act has the same meaning as the said expression has under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that the tourist bus was a "public conveyance" and therefore, the provisions contained in Section 42, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act were not applicable. I am in full agreement with their Lordships. This case does not help the appellant before me. 11. In the Rajasthan case the SHO, Khanda Falls had received a source information regarding transportation of contraband by the accused in a jeep. Such information was though alleged to have been communicated to the Circle Officer Sorabh Srivastava and the raiding party nabbed the culprits in the dead hours of the night and recovered and seized heroine on search of the persons of the culprits and their vehicle, but before leaving the police station the SHO had not recorded the grounds for his belief that a search warrant or authorisation could not be obtained without opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of the offender. It was held that the mandatory provisions contained in Section 42 were not complied with and, therefore, the trial stood vitiated.The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from those before me. Therefore, this case does not help the appellant. 12. It was held that the mandatory provisions contained in Section 42 were not complied with and, therefore, the trial stood vitiated.The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from those before me. Therefore, this case does not help the appellant. 12. It was next urged by the learned Counsel that the provisions contained in Section 55 were not complied with inasmuch as that PW 5 Rama Shankar Prasad, Superintendent, who received the sealed packets of the samples from Nand Lal Inspector and kept in double lock 'Malkhana', did notput his own seal on the packets. Mr.Bajwa submitted that the Superintendent, Shri Rama Shankar Prasad, registered Crime No. 10/92 on the basis of the report lodged by Nand Lal Inspector, appointed PW 6 Shiv Nara in, Inspector as the Investigating Officer in the case and kept the seized contraband in the 'Malkhana'. All these acts done by Mr. Prasad, urged Mr. Bajwa, clearly indicate that he was having the powers of an Incharge of a Police Station and, therefore, he should have acted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 55, which he failed to do. This argument too, in my opinion, is misconceived. 13. The offences under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act are, as per Section 37, congnizable offences. In view of the menace caused by the use of certain drugs and psychotropic substances to the health of the community the Central Government after consultation with the State Government may invest any officer of certain specified departments with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, as mandated in Section 53. But investment of such investigatory powers on the officers of such other departments under section 53 does not make them full-fledged officer-in-charge of a police station for all purposes. They might be having the attributes of a police officer in-charge of a police station but they are not such officers for the purposes of Sections 169,173, Cr.P.C. etc. etc. But investment of such investigatory powers on the officers of such other departments under section 53 does not make them full-fledged officer-in-charge of a police station for all purposes. They might be having the attributes of a police officer in-charge of a police station but they are not such officers for the purposes of Sections 169,173, Cr.P.C. etc. etc. Those officers, invested with the investigatory powers under section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, act under the provisions of that Act and not in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of the said Code are also applicable to the prosecutions under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. 14. Section 55 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act talks of a police officer in-charge of a police station and not to officers of other departments including the Narcotics, Central or State Excise, Drugs Deptts., who have been invested with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station under section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. 15. In the instant case an officer of such other department had carried on search and seizure proceedings and delivered the seized contraband to his immediate official superior, which officer had been invested with the powers under section 53 for the purposes of investigation of offences under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. Nand Lal Inspector or Rama Shankar Pd. Superintendent did not deliver the seized contraband to any police officer- in-charge of a police station. Had they done that the provisions contained in Section 55 would have stood attracted. In that case too the prosecution case would not be dismissed simply on the ground that the officer-in-charge of the police station did not put his own seal on the sealed packets or the outer covers, containing such packets, without proof of prejudice having been caused to the accused as a result of the lapse or failure on the part of the officer in-charge of the police station. There is thus no merit in this argument of Mr. Bajwa and it is accordingly dismissed. 16. It was next urged by Mr. There is thus no merit in this argument of Mr. Bajwa and it is accordingly dismissed. 16. It was next urged by Mr. Bajwa that the samples sent to the Laboratory at Neemuch were received back due to defects in sealing process and such being an established fact on the record of the case the link evidence, if any is there, be rejected and the appellant acquitted. I examined the record of the case quite minutely and critically and find no merit in this arguments also. The sample from the seized substance were prepared by Nand Lal Inspector or 21.8.1992, were duly sealed and in sealed condition he delivered them to Ram Prasad (PW 5), Superintendent, who was also the 'Malkhana' in-charge. On 23.8.1992 Zaheen Ahmed constable took the sealed packets to the Laboratory at Neemuch but they were not received by the office of the Laboratory on the ground that the specimen of the seal, used to seal the packets, had not been separately forwarded. In its letter Ex. P714 dated 24.8.1992 the Laboratory pointed-out the defect and required the officers of the Department to send the specimen of the seal, used in sealing the sample packets, in the proforma given in Ex. P/14. On 25.8.1992 the sample packets were again sent to the Laboratory along with the specimen seal on Ex. P/13. Nand Lal Inspector has stated that while preparing the samples and putting seals on them and on other seized substance on 21.8.1992 he had, by oversight, omitted to prepare a separate memo containing the impression of the seal used by him on the sample packets and when the recollected the omission he prepared the memo Ex. P/13 and delivered the same to Rama Shankar Pd. Superintendent. The Superintendent has corroborated him in that behalf. The omission to prepare the memo Ex. P/13 at the time when the samples were prepared and sealed by the witness could have been quite bona fide in view of the volume of the work involved. The truck was loaded with cartons containing 'Purchooni' goods and such cartons were unloaded in order to find out the contraband concealed in gunny bags. 21 small rexine bags had been recovered from the three gunny bags and two samples from the contents of each of the three gunny bags had been prepared. The truck was loaded with cartons containing 'Purchooni' goods and such cartons were unloaded in order to find out the contraband concealed in gunny bags. 21 small rexine bags had been recovered from the three gunny bags and two samples from the contents of each of the three gunny bags had been prepared. The witness could have bona fidely missed to prepare the memo of the specimen seal separately. The rapid sequence of events clearly exhibits the good faith of the witnesses in sending the specimen impression of the seal, used in sealing the sample packets on 25.8.1992. Ram Shankar Prasad, the Superintendent, and Zaheen Ahmed, the carrier of the sealed packets have stated on oath that the seals on the sample packets had remained intact during the period such packets remained in their respective possessions. There are no good reasons to disbelieve them particularly when the seals on the sample packets were found quite intact by the officers of the Laboratory. Specimen of the seal, used in sealing the samples, is to be prepared separately and is, no doubt, required to be sent to the Laboratory along with the sealed samples. But in sending the separately prepared memo, having upon it the specimen impression of the seal used in sealing the samples, if a delay of one or two days is committed it causes no prejudice to the accused, if the seal on the samples tallies with the separately sent seal impression and is found intact. That is the position in the present case. No prejudice has been caused to Karnail appellant in this case by not sending the specimen of the seal (Ex. P/13) along with the samples on 23.8.1992 but sending the same on the next day i.e. on 25.8.1992. The argument advanced is rejected. 17. It was next urged by Mr. Bajwa that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband. There is no merit in this argument either. 18. Once it is proved that the appellant was found in possession of the contraband it is to be inferred from the facts and circumstances attending upon the possession of the contraband by the accused and in the absence of any evidence or circumstances to the contrary, whether the accused may be said to be in conscious possession of the contraband or not. This is to be answered after keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the given case. 19. In the instant case the contraband was being transported in a truck and was found kept concealed in gunny bags below the cartons. None else but the brother of the appellant was the owner of the truck. Karnail Singh appellant was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. On being examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. he simply stated that his truck was stopped and taken to the control room where he was put behind the bars and his signatures were obtained on certain papers. He did not state any other facts regarding the possession of the contraband. There is no evidence on record to show as to where the truck was loaded with the cartons and that he was not present at that time. Those facts were in the special knowledge of the appellant which he did not like to disclose for reasons best known to him. There is also no evidence, even to remotely suggest, that the contraband could have been or were kept in the vehicle without his knowledge or in his absence. On such facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, I concur with the learned trial Judge that the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband. 20. No other point, including breach or non- compliance of any other provisions of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act or the rules made thereunder, was stressed and urged before me. S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 557/94 Billaur Singh v. State of Anr. 21. In this appeal under section 454, Cr.P.C. Ballaur Singh appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Judge directing the forfeiture of truck No. PCT 9997, wherein the contraband was being transported. The contention of Mr. Bajwa is that while passing his order under section 452, Cr.P.C. at the conclusion of the trial of Karnail Singh, appellant in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 449/1994 discussed above, and confiscating the conveyance used in the commission of any offence under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, the learned Judge did not follow the mandate contained in Section 60 of the said Act in as much as that no opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant. I find substance in the argument advanced by Mr. Bajwa. 22. I find substance in the argument advanced by Mr. Bajwa. 22. Ballaur Singh appellant is said to be the registered owner of truck No. PCT 9997 which was found to have been used as conveyance in carrying the opium, weighing about 97 kgs. in three gunny bags, which was an article liable to confiscation under Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. The owner of the conveyance, used in carrying the narcotic drug, has, under Sub-sections (3) of Section 60, a right to prove that the conveyance was so used without his knowledge or connivance. The seized vehicle was on the 'Supardgi' of Ballaur Singh under section 451, Cr.P.C. during the trial against Karnail Singh. However, at the time of the trial being concluded and before making order under section 452, Cr.P.C. for the confiscation of the truck No. PCT, 9997 the appellant was not given any opportunity to prove that the said vehicle, belonging to him, was used by Karnail Singh for carrying opium, without his knowledge or connivance. His grievance is, therefore, genuine and deserve to be accepted. 23. In the result. (1) Karnail Singh's Appeal No. 449/1994 succeeds to this extent only that while confirming his conviction under sections 8/ 18, NDPS the substantive sentence of 15 years is reduced to ten years and the fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs imposed on him is reduced to Rs. 1 lakh or in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for six months. This modification in his sentence is made in view of his advanced age exceeding sixty years and there being no previous conviction for similar offence against him. (2) Ballaur Singh's Appeal No. 557/1994 is allowed and the order of confiscation of truck No. PCT 9997, made by the learned trial Judge at the time of concluding the trial of Karnail Singh appellant in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 449/1994 and as contained in the impugned judgment and order, is hereby set aside. The issue of disposal of the said vehicle is remitted back to the learned trial Judge to be decided by him afresh according to law after giving an opportunity of being heard to Ballaur Singh. In exercise his right under section 60(3), N DPS Act, Ballaur Singh would be entitled to adduce oral and/ or documentary evidence relevant to the issue on the point. In exercise his right under section 60(3), N DPS Act, Ballaur Singh would be entitled to adduce oral and/ or documentary evidence relevant to the issue on the point. Ballaur Singh appellant is directed, through his Counsel, to appear before the learned trial Judge alongwith the evidence, oral or documentary, in his possession in support of his plea under Section 60(3), N'DPS Act, on 5.10.1998. The learned trial Judge is expected to hear the matter on that day or on any other day to which he in his discretion, adjourns the hearing. He is expected to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Ordered accordingly. *******