( 1 ) THE appellant has challenged his conviction and entence under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called the Act) on two grounds. Let me refe to them first. Their dissection would follow later.

( 2 ) THE appellant states that the learned Additior ot assions Judge has wrongly Relied on upon the report Ex. Public Witness 7/d made by Mr. C. L. Bansal, Senior Scientific Assistant, Central Forensic Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation. He submits that the said report being not by a Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director of the Central or a State Forensic Laboratory and thus being not a statement under the hand of any of the experts mentioned in sub-section 4 (e) of section 293 of the Code of Criminal procedure, it could not be taken to beadmissible in evidence in view of the said provision of the Code and that once this portion is accepted it cannot be taken as established on the record that the substance recovered was opium Insupport my attention has been drawn to Heera Lal v. State DRJ 1993 (25) 52 (1993) DLT 231; Khalil Ahmed v. State, Crl. Appeal 80 of 1992 decided on October 27, 1994; Rajesh Kumar v.