( 1 ) (HIS Lordship after discussing the evidence set aside the conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1968 dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 1968 preferred by accused No. 3 dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 1968 preferred by the original accused No. 1 and also dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 1968. His Lordship as regards confiscation of the motor truck which was used for transporting contraband liquor after discussing the evidence further observed:- )

( 2 ) IT was urged on behalf of original accused No. 4 Hiralal Gangaram that the motor truck belongs to him and even though it was used for transport of contraband liquor there is nothing to show that it was done with his consent connivance or knowledge or at his instance and therefore the motor truck was not liable to confiscation. On behalf of Jethanand Ishvardas it was contended that he entered into an agreement with Hiralal Gangaram accused No. 4 for the purchase of the said truck on 9-11-66 for Rs. 20 0 and towards the purchase price he Had paid Rs. 5000/in cash to Hiralal Gangaram and the balance of Rs. 15000/was to be paid in 15 monthly instalments each of Rs. 1000. 00. It was contended that this agr