JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: - There is a delay of 277 days in filing the present appeal. Since no notice under Section 60 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the NDPS Act’), has been issued and as such the delay stands condoned. 2. Briefly stated, Harjinder Singh and Nishan Singh were sent to stand trial for offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, in FIR No. 176 dated 26.11.2004, registered at Police Station Rai. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.11.2004, 12 bags each containing 20 kgs of poppy husk were found in TATA Sumo bearing registration No. PB-11U-1814. The trial Court after appraisal of the evidence acquitted the accused as the prosecution failed to prove that recovery has been effected from the accused Harjinder Singh and Nishan Singh. However, vide judgment dated 30.7.2008 the TATA Sumo referred to above has been confiscated to the State. Relevant portion observed in the judgment is paragraph No. 25 which is reproduced as under:- “25. Before parting, it is also worthwhile to add that according to Section 60(3) of the Act, the conveyance used for carrying the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances shall be liable to confiscation unless the owner of the conveyance proves that it was so used without his knowledge or connivance of himself or his agent and the person-in-charge of the conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precaution against such use. Gurjeet Singh was the registered owner of TATA Sumo bearing No. PB-11U-1814 on the date of recovery of Poppy Husk from the same. He appeared as PW-11, but his statement has not been accepted as the same does not inspire any confidence regarding handing over the vehicle by him to the accused persons for the purpose of attending marriage. His statement does not show in any manner that he had taken all reasonable precautions against use of this vehicle for carrying poppy husk. Therefore, there is no need to issue further notice to him before confiscating the vehicle. Accordingly, TATA Sumo bearing No. PB- 11U-1814 shall stand confiscated to the State of Haryana to be dealt with in accordance with rules at appropriate time after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing appeal or revision, as the case may be or the decision thereof, if any, filed.” 4. Accordingly, TATA Sumo bearing No. PB- 11U-1814 shall stand confiscated to the State of Haryana to be dealt with in accordance with rules at appropriate time after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing appeal or revision, as the case may be or the decision thereof, if any, filed.” 4. From the perusal of the said observation, it is crystal clear that appellant simply appeared as PW-11 and his testimony was not accepted but no notice under Section 60 of the NDPS Act was issued to him. In view of provisions of Section 60 (3) of the NDPS Act, issuance of notice is mandatory before confiscating any vehicle. 5. So, in these circumstances, that part of judgment vide which the vehicle in question has been confiscated, stands set aside and the case stands remanded back to the trial court for fresh decision. The trial Court shall proceed after issuing notice under Section 60 of the NDPS Act in accordance with the law. 6. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.1.2012. 7. Disposed of. ------------------