( 1 ) IN this appeal Attar Singh has challenged his conviction under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ) and the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 or in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for two years Cr. A. 129/92 vide judgement and order dated 16. 7. 92 by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

( 2 ) CHARGE under Section 18 of the Act was framed against the appellant on 28. 10. 1991 that on 6. 1. 1991 near Woodland Park, Najafgarh Road, he was found in possession of 1 Kg. of opium.

( 3 ) IN nutshell, allegations against the appellant have been that on 6. 1. 1991 ASI Ranbir Singh was present with Inspector Rajinder Singh, SHO Police Station Rajouri Garden with other officials on patrol duty and reached near Taxi Stand Tagore Garden. Secret information was received at about 9. 05 pm. that one person having opium would be coming from the side of Tilak Nagar and would be proceeding towards Tagore Garden via Subhash Nagar Mod. Accordingly, a raiding party was organised by ASI Ranbir Singh under the supervision of Inspector Rajinder Singh in which one Vinod from public was also joined. Attar Singh was apprehended at about 9. 25 pm. at the pointing out of the informer.

( 4 ) INSPECTOR Rajinder Singh, disclosing his identity informed Attar Singh about the information available with him regarding his having opium and that if he so desired he could be taken before a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. This offer was, however, de p/. 3 dined by Attar Singh.

( 5 ) INSPECTOR Rajinder Singh gave information to-ACP Vijay Malik who reached the spot and in his presence personal search of Attar Singh was taken when opium was recovered from him, which on weighing was found to be I Kg. A sample of 100 grams was separated and both the sample and the remaining opium were con- verted into separate parcels sealed with the seal of rs of the I. O. Inspector Rajinder Singh also affixed his own seal of rs on the two parcels and also on the CFSL form, which was filled up at the spot. These were taken into possession by the 1. 0. after preparing a seizure memo. A separate certificate was given by ACP Vijay Malik with regard to the proceedings taken in his presence. ASI Ranbir Singh sent the rucca to Police Station Rajouri Garden on the basis of which FIR No. 17 was recorded.

( 6 ) THE case property and the CFSL form were taken by the SHO and he deposited the same in the Malkhana. The 1. 0. recorded the statements of the,witnesses and arrested Attar Singh.

( 7 ) THE sample sealed parcel was sent to CFSL wherefrom a report was received. Investigation revealed commission of offence under Section 18 of the Act and, thus, the challan.

( 8 ) ATTAR Singh pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. In his statement recorded undersection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he had denied all the allegations and pleaded that he had falsely been implicated in the case and that no recovery was effected from him. He examined one witness in defence. The learned trial court after hearing arguments convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above.

( 9 ) I have heard Shri K. B. Andley, learned counsel for the appellant; and Ms. Mukta Gupta, learned counsel for the State. I have also carefully gone through the record.

( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has not been any reliable evidence on record with regard to the filling of the CFSL form and about the deposit of the same with the Moharrir Malkhana. He has further submitted that there is no reliable evidence with regard to the sending of the CFSL form alongwith the sample to CFSL and that there has been a delay in sending of the same to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory which could be indicative of the fact that the case property was tampered with. He has further submitted that there is no proper report from the CFSL on recor