Bala Krishna Narayana, J. - Appellant Zuber who has. been convicted for offences under Section 21C read with Sections 29 and 25 of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 12 years R.I. and 10 years R.I. on both counts with a fine of 1,00,000 (One lac) on each counts and in default of payment of fine further undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment on each counts by the judgment and order dated 27.5.2007, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Varanasi is seeking enlargement on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The prayer for being enlarged on bail by the appellants of Criminal Appeal Nos. 4118 and 4119 of 2006, Fahim and Moinuddin as well as Hafiz Afjal, Tayyab and Akeel atias Mannu alias Manne which arise out of the same judgment as Criminal Appeal No. 4117 of 2006 is also being considered simultaneously. 3. Heard Sri D. S. Misra and Sri A. P. Misra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri I. P. Singh and Sanjay Kumar Singh for the Central Bureau of Narcotics and the Union of India and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record of the Criminal Case No. 162C of 1996. Eschewing the necessary details the facts necessary for consideration of the prayer for bail are catapulted here in below : 4. From the perusal of the record it transpires that on 29.12.1995 the truck bearing the registration number U. P. 78-B-7554 (hereinafter referred to as 'the truck' in question) was intercepted and checked by the members of the Central Bureau of Narcotics on 29.12.1995 at about 8.00 p.m. on prior information that the truck in question was transporting illicit contraband substance. Out of four persons who were travelling in the truck in question, three persons made their escape good in the cover of darkness. The three persons who had escaped from the truck were recognized in the torch light by the members of the Central Bureau of Narcotics as Hafiz Afzal, Taiiab and Aqueel afias Manne alias Mannu. The only person who could not escape and who was caught upon being enquired disclosed his name as Abrar Ahmad. Upon further interrogation he divulged the names of the driver of the truck and two other persons who had escaped from the Truck as Aqueel aiias Manne, Hafiz Afzal and Taiiab. The only person who could not escape and who was caught upon being enquired disclosed his name as Abrar Ahmad. Upon further interrogation he divulged the names of the driver of the truck and two other persons who had escaped from the Truck as Aqueel aiias Manne, Hafiz Afzal and Taiiab. The appellant, Abrar Ahmad was given the option of being searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, which he declined and requested that he be searched by members of Central Bureau of Narcotics. The personal search of Abrar did not yield any recovery. For the purpose of searching the truck two independent witnesses were called upon. A thorough search of the truck in question lead to recovery of three cartons containing eleven packets and two cartons containing eleven packets each on which Krishi Vibhag Beej Prakshep Anna Vibhag, Uttar Pradesh was inscribed. A small quantity of substance was drawn from each of packets and upon being tested by the testing kit, the substance was found to be Heroin. The five cartons containing fifty three packets each weighing about one kg. were separately marked as A, B, C, D and E and the packets contained therein were marked according to the numbers of packets which they contained as A-1 to A-11, B-l to B-ll, C-l to C-10, D-l to D-ll and E-l to E-10. The gross weight of the recovered Heroin upon being measured by a weighing scale was found to be 53 kg. The Heroin contained in different packets of each carton was mixed by opening the packets. Two samples of five gms. each were taken from mixture and sealed and kept in a tin box which was wrapped in a white cloth which was also sealed. Thereafter, the recovery memo was prepared. The remaining contraband substance was restored back in the packets and kept in the cartons and each of the cartons was wrapped by a white paper and sealed. Signatures of accused, witnesses and the officers were obtained on all the sealed articles. The recovery memo of the recovered Heroin prepared and read out to the witnesses, accused and the officers. Thereafter, they put their signatures thereon also. A copy of the recovery memo was given to, Abrar Ahmad and the Superintendent of Central Bureau of Narcotics, Madan Lal Mina prepared the specimen seal On the spot. The recovery memo of the recovered Heroin prepared and read out to the witnesses, accused and the officers. Thereafter, they put their signatures thereon also. A copy of the recovery memo was given to, Abrar Ahmad and the Superintendent of Central Bureau of Narcotics, Madan Lal Mina prepared the specimen seal On the spot. He also prepared a separate seizure memo of the truck and other articles and Abrar Ahmad had put his signature thereon. After completion of the seizure proceedings, the statement of Abrar Ahmad was recorded by Madan Lal Meena Superintendent, Central Bureau of Narcotics on 30.12.1995 which is on record as Ext. 4. In his statement Abrar Ahmad is alleged to have admitted the recovery of illicit Heroin from the truck and also admitted the presence of other three suspects on the spot. Abrar Ahmad was produced before the remand Magistrate, Vth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi on 31.12.1995 for remand and was sent for jail. The recovered articles were handed over to the custody of Sri Gupteshwar Singh of Central Bureau of Narcotics, Varanasi. 5. Five of the ten samples taken from twenty recovered Heroin substance were sent for chemical analysis on 1.1.1996 alongwith a letter to the Government Heroin Factory, Neemach, Madhya Pradesh. A detailed report of seizure and arrest prepared under Section 57 of the Act was forwarded to the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow Camp, Ghazipur on 30.12.1995. The report of chemical analyst dated 19.1.1996 indicated the presence of dicital morphine in the samples. By an order dated 3.1.1996 the complainant, Ram Avtar, Assistant Narcotics Commissioner, Central Narcotics Bureau, Lucknow was appointed as Investigating Officer who after completing the investigation filed a complaint before the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi against fifteen persons on 27.3.1996. The said complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 162 of 1995. Only five accused namely, Abrar Ahmad, Abdul Mabood, Ayub, Altaf and Kuddus were tried in Criminal Case No. 162 of 1995 for the offences with which they were charged and the trial of the other accused persons was separated for various reasons. The appellants Zuber and Hafiz Afjal, Fahim, Moinuddin, Tayyab and Akeel alias Munna alias Munne were tried for the offence for which they were charged in Case No. 162C of 1995. The appellants Zuber and Hafiz Afjal, Fahim, Moinuddin, Tayyab and Akeel alias Munna alias Munne were tried for the offence for which they were charged in Case No. 162C of 1995. In compliance of the order dated 4.1.1996, passed by the Incharge, Sessions Judge, Varanasi, Abrar Ahmad was kept in departmental custody and on 7.1.1996 his second statement was recorded by Investigating Officer, R. A. Rai in which he reiterated the facts which he had stated in his statement recorded on 30.12.1995 and disclosed the names of the accused who had managed to escape from the spot as Hafiz Afzal, Taiiyab and driver Aqueel alias Manne alias Mannu. In his statement Abrar Ahmad further stated that he was the khalasi of the truck in question which had been pressed into service for transporting 53 kgs. of Heroin to Calcutta. Abrar Ahmad in his statement also elicited that Kuddus, Fahim, Moin Uddin, Javed, Hazi Anwar, Hafiz Afzal, Tayyab Zuber, Aqueel and Nazeem were actively involved in illegal trafficking of narcotics drugs which is completely prohibited and is an offence under the Act. Record further shows that the statement of co-accused Mohd. Maboob was recorded on 9.1.1996 in which he admitted his complicity as a participant in illegal trafficking of prohibited narcotic drugs and also admitted the involvement of Hafiz Afzal, Tayyab, Kuddus and Zuber, Moinuddin, Zaved, Hazi Anwar, Fahim and Zumai in the said illicit business of illegal drug trafficking. Abdul Mabood's statement under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act in which he admitted his involvement in the illicit drug trafficking with other co-accused was recorded on 9.1.1996. 6. Accused Ayub in his statement (Ext. Ka-24) recorded under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act on 12.1.1996 admitted that he had attempted to transport Heroin illegally by concealing the same in the cabinet of the truck in question and he was extending co-operation in the business of illicit drug trafficking and was part of the criminal conspiracy under which 53 Kg. Heroin was planned to be illegally transported to Calcutta. 7. Altaf Hussain alias Zumai in his statement recorded under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act on 17.1.1996 (Ext. Ka-26) by the Investigating Officer admitted his involvement in the illicit business of illegal trafficking of prohibited narcotic drug alongwith other co-accused. Abdul Mabood also in his statement recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act on 12.1.1996, which is on record as Ext. Ka-26) by the Investigating Officer admitted his involvement in the illicit business of illegal trafficking of prohibited narcotic drug alongwith other co-accused. Abdul Mabood also in his statement recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act on 12.1.1996, which is on record as Ext. Ka-23 admitted his complicity in the illegal trafficking of contraband drugs alongwith other co-accused. Similarly the statement of Quddus recorded under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act on 11.4.1997 is on record as Ext. Ka-33. 8. The appellants Zuber, Akeel alias Munna alias Munne, Fahim and Moinuddin during their examination under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act admitted their complicity in the illegal trafficking of contraband drugs. 9. Charge against the appellants Zuber, Hafiz Afjal, Tayyab, Akeel alias Munne, Moinuddin and Fahim under Sections 21C read with Section 29 of N.D.P.S. Act was framed. Against the appellant Zuber additonal charge under Section 25 of N.D.P.S. Act was framed. 10. For proving the charges, made against the accused the prosecution examined Ram Dhari Singh P.W. 1, Jeevach Thakur P.W. 2, D. P. Srivastava Inspector Central Narcotic Bureau, Lucknow P.W. 3, Panna Lal Mehra, Security Guard Central Narcotic Bureau as P.W. 4, Gupteshwar Singh retired Superintendent Central Customs Department, Varanasi P.W. 5. 11. From the side of the prosecution confidential information report Ext. Ka-1, Search Memo of truck bearing registration No. U.P.78B 6536, dated 28.12.1995 Ext. Ka-2, Statement of S.I. Ram Dhari Singh S.I. dated 24.3.1996 Ext. Ka-6, Recovery7 memo of Heroin Ext. 4, Seizure memo of truck bearing registration No. U. P. 78B-6536, dated 29.12.1995, Ext. Ka-5, Specimen Seal dated 29.12.1995 Ext. Ka-6, Statement of Abrar Ahmad recorded under Section 67 on 31.12.1999, Ext. Ka-7, statement of Jeevach Thakur, Security Guard Ext. Ka-8, which was proved by Security Guard P.W. 2 were filed as documentary evidence. 12. Other documentary evidence on record adduced on behalf of the prosecution has been referred to in the judgment of the court below. 13. The appellants Zuber, Tayyab, Akeel alias Munne, Fahim, Moinuddin, Hafiz Afjal in their examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. denied the incriminating circumstances and materials against them and denied their involvement in the illicit drug trade of drug trafficking. The court below after considering the entire evidence on record convicted the appellants for the offences for which they were charged and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for the period already indicated herein above. 14. P. C. denied the incriminating circumstances and materials against them and denied their involvement in the illicit drug trade of drug trafficking. The court below after considering the entire evidence on record convicted the appellants for the offences for which they were charged and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for the period already indicated herein above. 14. Sri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove by any legally admissible evidence that the appellant Abrar Ahmad was arrested from the place and in the manner as alleged in the recovery memo and the complaint and 53 Kgs. of contraband substance was recovered from the truck in question. 15. He next contended that the appellants Zuber, Fahim. Akeel alias Munna alias Munne have been convicted on the basis of their confessional statements which were recorded before the officers of Central Bureau of Narcotics while they were under detention although not formally arrested, and the said confessional statements of the appellants are wholly inadmissible for the purpose of their conviction on account of being hit by Sections 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In support of his aforementioned contention Sri D. S. Misra placed reliance upon, Sasi and another v. State of Kerala, 2001 (2) EFR 222 ; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and another, 2008 (2) EFR 707 (SC) and Raju Premji v. Customs Commissioner, 2010 (1) UP Cr R 110. 16. He also contended that apart from confessional statements of some of the other co accused and confessional statements of the appellants Zuber, Hafiz Afjal, Akeel alias Munne and Moinuddin the only evidence left on record for proving the prosecution case, was the highly interested testimony of the officers and guards of Central Bureau of Narcotics which could not be safely relied upon. 17. Sri Misra further submitted that the court below while convicting the appellants Hafiz Afjal and Tayyab has illegally placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W. 2, Jeevach Thakur, who professed that he knew the appellants Hafiz Afjal and Tayyab and he had recognised them while they were escaping by jumping from the truck in question in the torch light and he also knew the appellant Akeel alias Munne by face, without the appellants Hafiz Afjal, Tayyab and Akeel alias Munna alias Munne being put to identification test. He further contended that as far as appellants Hafiz Afjal, and Tayyab are concerned, they have not even confessed their guilt before the officers of Central Narcotics Bureau and hence their conviction is not warranted by any legally admissible evidence. 18. Sri Misra further contended that the seized contraband articles were disposed of by the prosecution without there being any order of the special Court where the complaint had been filed. He next contended that after the complaint had been filed and the cognizance of the offence by the Additional Sessions Judge was taken, the Magistrate ceased to have any power to pass any order for disposal of the seized contraband articles and disposal of the seized contraband article pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate on the application of the prosecution filed after the cognizance had been taken by the Sessions Judge resulted in illegal disposal of the recovered contraband article which vitiated the trial as there was no legally admissible evidence on record linking the samples drawn with the alleged contraband articles recovered from the truck in question. In support of his aforesaid contention he relied upon Union of India u. Bal Mukund and others, (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 541: (2009) 12 SCC 161 and Raju Premji v. Customs Commissioner Shillong Unit, 2010 (1) UP Cr R 110. 19. Sri Misra lastly submitted that all the appellants are in jail for the last more than six years and since there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard in near future the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail on this ground alone. 20. 19. Sri Misra lastly submitted that all the appellants are in jail for the last more than six years and since there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard in near future the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail on this ground alone. 20. Opposing the prayer for bail and justifying the conviction of the appellants as well as the sentence awarded to them and urging that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity, Sri I. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Central Bureau of Narcotics submitted that after the insertion of Section 32A in the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 by Section 10 by Act No. 2 of 1989 no sentence awarded under the Act other than Section 27 can be suspended, remitted or commuted subject to the provisions of Section 33 which exempts a person convicted of an offence under N.D.P.S. Act who is under 18 years of age or that the offence for which such person is convicted is punishable under Section 26 or 27 of the Act from the application of Section 32A. 21. Sri I. P. Singh next contended that since in the present case the quantity of the recovered contraband substance is much greater than the commercial quantity, and the recovery and arrest has been proved not only by officers of Central Bureau of Narcotics but also one public witness Gopal Singh the parameters of Section 37A of the Act will have to be considered before the appellants who have been convicted for the offences under the Act can be enlarged on bail and since learned counsel for the appellant has miserably failed to bring the appellant's case for bail within the parameters of Section 37 (ij (b) of the Act, the prayer for bail is liable to be turned down. In support of his contention he relied upon Ratan Kumar Vishwas v. State of U. P. and another, (2009) 1 SCC 482 : 2009 (1) ACR 135 (SC) and N. R. Mon v. Mohd. Nasimuddin. (2008) 6 SCC 721 . 22. Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India advanced identical arguments and opposed the prayer for bail. Relying upon Ramesh Chandra v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 940 ; Mahesh v. Union of India and another, 1988 ALJ 411 ; Abdul Razzak alias Rq/u v. Sudip Kr. Nasimuddin. (2008) 6 SCC 721 . 22. Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India advanced identical arguments and opposed the prayer for bail. Relying upon Ramesh Chandra v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 940 ; Mahesh v. Union of India and another, 1988 ALJ 411 ; Abdul Razzak alias Rq/u v. Sudip Kr. Dutta Gupta, 1989 Cr LJ 2007 (Cal) ; Raj Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and another, 1990 (27) ACC (SC) 443 ; M. Prabhu Lal v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2003 (47) ACC 1151 : 2004 (1) ACR 512 (SC) ; Kanhiya Lal (supra) ; Union of India v. Munna and another, 2004 Cr LJ 4183 ; Union of India v. Satrohan, 2008 (1) JIC 230 (SC). He vehemently urged that the officers of Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Central Bureau, Department of Narcotics, Central Excise and Revenue Intelligence vested by Central Government with powers under Sections 36A, 42 and 53 of the N.D.P.S. Act, are not police officers within the contemplation of Cr. P. C. and the statements recorded by such officers under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act are not hit by the provisions of Sections 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Advancing his arguments further in this regard, he submitted that the statements of the accused which were recorded before the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics who are not police officers within the meaning of Cr. P. C. were not hit by Sections 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act and the appellants' conviction on the basis of their confessional statements as well as the statements of co-accused and other evidences on record was fully justified. P. C. were not hit by Sections 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act and the appellants' conviction on the basis of their confessional statements as well as the statements of co-accused and other evidences on record was fully justified. He contended that the law on the issue whether the delay in disposal of the appeal in itself can be a legitimate ground for enlarging the convicted appellants on bail during the pendency of the appeal is no longer res-integra and has been set at rest by the Apex Court in its judgment delivered on 23.1.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2009, Union of India v. Rattan Mallik alias Kabul wherein the Apex Court held that no likelihood of hearing of an appeal preferred by a person against the judgment of conviction in near future is not relevant for grant of bail in the matters arising out of conviction under the N.D.P.S. Act involving commercial quantity and a convict cannot be released on bail unless and until mandatory requirements stipulated under Section 37 (1) (b) of the Act are satisfied. Sri Sanjay Singh also submitted that there is no bar under the N.D.P.S. Act that once cognizance has been taken by a Special Judge for an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act the Magistrate ceases to have any jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 52A for disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and thus it cannot be said that the disposal of the seized contraband articles by the prosecution pursuant to the order of the Magistrate passed under Section 52A (3) of the Act was in violation of any provision of the Act. 23. Repelling the aforementioned submissions of Sri I. P. Singh and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing for Central Bureau of Narcotics and Union of India, Sri D. S. Misra relying upon Dadu alias Tulsidas (supra) submitted that Section 32A of N.D.P.S. Act was held to be unconstitutional by the Apex Court to the extent it took away the right of the High Court to suspend the sentence of a person convicted under the N.D.P.S. Act and thus intermeddles with the right of appeal in such a way as to actually taking away the right of the executive to suspend, remit and commute the sentence under the Act. He further contended that the Section 37 (1) (b) must be construed in a pragmatic manner and it cannot be construed in such a way so as to negate the right of a party to obtain bail which is otherwise a valuable right for all practical purposes. In this regard, he has relied upon State of Uttaranchal v. Rqjesh Kumar Gupta, 2007 (1J EFR 98 : 2007 (1) ACR 1093 (SC) ; Man Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (2) EFR 15 : 2006 (2) ACR 1438 (SC); Mohammed Islam alias Farooq v. Union of India, 2001 (1) EFR 538; Daler Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (IJ EFR 253; Salim v. State of Punjab, 2007 (2) EFR 275; Kamal v. State of Haryana, 2004 (13} SCC 526; Sander Lal v. Central Bureau of Narcotics, Neemuch (MP), 2008 (I) EFR 164 and Wassan Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2008 (1) EFR 172. 24. Sri Misra further contended that the report of the chemical analyst indicates different morphin percentage in the five samples which shows that the samples were not taken from the mixture of the entire seized articles which was prepared after mixing the entire seized contraband articles as alleged by the prosecution and which further proves that the original samples were either tampered with or the same were not sent for chemical analysis. He also tried to show that there was a discrepancy in the gross weight of the quantity of contraband articles recovered as mentioned in the recovery memo and as mentioned by the prosecution witnesses. 25. I have very carefully examined the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record as well as the impugned judgment. From the catena of the decisions cited on behalf of the parties one undisputed legal principle which emerges is that while considering a prayer for bail in an appeal against the judgment convicting a person under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act where the quantity of recovered contraband articles is commercial quantity, the Court has to consider whether the parameters provided under Section 37 (1) (b) of the Act are satisfied or not. In the present case, it is undisputed that the quantity of the Heroin recovered was 53 kg. which is much greater than the commercial quantity, i.e., 250 gms. In the present case, it is undisputed that the quantity of the Heroin recovered was 53 kg. which is much greater than the commercial quantity, i.e., 250 gms. The submission of Sri I. B. Singh that after the insertion of Section 32A of the N.D.P.S. Act no sentence awarded under the N.D.P.S. Act can be remitted, suspended or commuted has no merit and is rejected outrightly. I now proceed to examine whether in the present case the parameters of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are satisfied or not and for this purpose it will be useful to extract Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act which reads as hereunder : 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. - (1) Notwith­standing anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) - (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable ; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless • (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release ; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail. 26. From the evidence on record it appears that co-accused, Abrar Ahmad was arrested on the spot sitting in the truck by which contraband articles were being transported. He admitted that he was travelling in the truck as Khalasi with full knowledge that 53 Kg. of Heroin was being transported by the said truck for illegal sale against the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. His first statement was recorded on 30.12.1995 by Madan Lal Meena, Superintendent, Central Bureau of Narcotics. He admitted that he was travelling in the truck as Khalasi with full knowledge that 53 Kg. of Heroin was being transported by the said truck for illegal sale against the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. His first statement was recorded on 30.12.1995 by Madan Lal Meena, Superintendent, Central Bureau of Narcotics. Then after remand in his second statement which was recorded before the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics on 7.1.1996 he reiterated the stand taken by him in his statement recorded on 30.12.1995 before he was formally arrested and arrayed as accused. 27. Co-accused Abrar has in his statement recorded on 30.12.1995 before Madan Lal Mina the Superintendent of Jail Narcotic Bureau described in detail the manner in which the other co-accused including the present appellants have been carrying on the trade of illicit drug trafficking. 28. The record shows that the presence of appellants Hafiz Afjal and Tayyab in the truck from which contraband articles were seized and their escape therefrom at the time of the interception of the truck was proved by P.W. 2 Jeevach Thakur, P.W. 2 Jeevach Thakur was cross-examined at great length by the appellants counsel but he stuck to the version of the incident as described by him in his exarnination-in-chief. 29. Learned counsel for the accused could not elicit anything from P.W. 2 Jeevach Thakur during his cross-examination which may indicate that his testimony did not inspire confidence. There is evidence on record showing that Zuber was the joint owner of the truck No. U.P.78B-7554 alongwith one Khalik from which the contraband articles were seized although the address of the owner of the truck No. U.P.78B- 7554 as provided to the concerned registering authority was not that of Zuber. However Zuber has also in his statement recorded under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act admitted his involvement in illegal trade of drug trafficking. 30. As far as the appellants Akeel alias Munne, Fahim and Moinuddin are concerned, they had in their statements recorded under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act admitted their complicity in the crime. 31. The confessions made by the aforementioned appellants were not retracted by them despite having several opportunities. The submission of Mr. 30. As far as the appellants Akeel alias Munne, Fahim and Moinuddin are concerned, they had in their statements recorded under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act admitted their complicity in the crime. 31. The confessions made by the aforementioned appellants were not retracted by them despite having several opportunities. The submission of Mr. D. S. Misra that the confessional statements of the appellants recorded under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act were hit by Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act and the conviction based on such confessional statements cannot be sustained has no merit. 32. As noticed hereinabove there is no dearth of decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court holding that the officers of Central Bureau of Narcotics are not police officers and the statements recorded before them are not hit by Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act. 33. The submission advanced by Sri Misra that the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail on account of their being in jail for last more than six years and there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard in near future is also without any substance. 34. The cases relied upon by Sri Misra in support of his aforementioned contention are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the case of Kamal (supra) the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 304B, I.P.C. In the case of Man Singh (supra) the appellant was released on bail by the Apex Court upon his offering to deposit the fine of Rs. 1,00,000 after he had undergone more than seven years imprisonment upon his conviction under Section 8/18 and 8/15 of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years' R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,00,000. In the present case, no such offer has come on behalf of the appellants. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Rattan Madik alias Habid (supra) has clearly laid down that the delay in disposal of the appeal may be a ground for bail in an appeal against the conviction for the offence punishable under the provisions of I.P.C. but the same cannot by itself be a ground for enlarging a person on bail in an appeal filed against the conviction under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act involving commercial quantity unless the conditions specified in the Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act are fulfilled. 35. 35. The submissions made by Sri Misra that the trial of the appellants stood vitiated on account of the samples from the seized contraband articles having not been drawn in accordance with the procedure prescribed by instructions 1/88 and seized contraband articles having been disposed of by the prosecution pursuant to the order of Magistrate passed after the Additional Sessions Judge had taken cognizance of the offence prima facie appear to be without any substance. 36. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the appellants are not guilty of the offences for which they have been convicted. 37. In view of the above, the prayer made by the appellants for being enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal is rejected. 38. However, the final hearing of the appeals is expedited. Office is directed to prepare the paper books within three weeks. 39. List these appeals for hearing in the first week of November, 2010. 40. It is being made clear that the views expressed by this Court on the respective contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties are tentative and not conclusive.