( 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. The State (Delhi Administion) Crl. Appeal No. 110 of 1989 decided on October 18. 1994, Nizamudditi v. The State, Crl. Appeal No. 82 of 1990 decided on September 14, 1994: and Islam v. The State (Delhi Admiinistration) 1994 (30) DRJ 629.

( 3 ) IN Heera Lal v. State (supra) it was held that if the Report is not under the hand of a Scientifie expert mentioned in sub-section 4 (e) of section 293 of the Code, it cannot beused as evidence in trial without the same being proved. Same view has been taken in other cases cited in the preceding paragraph.

( 4 ) BEFORE I proceed further, it may be mentioned that though the learned counsel for the State did not allow the contention raised by the appellant go unchallenged, he did not rely upon any authority in support.

( 5 ) SECTION 293 of the Code contains a special rule of evidence making a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert as REFERRED TO to in sub-section (4) upon any matter or anything submitted to him for examination and report, admissible in evidence without calling such expert as a witness. However, even in such acase the report will have to be tendered in evidence before it can be made use of. The only protection afforded by this provision is that a report covered by this provision if tendered in evidence, would not require any formal proof though it would be open to the court, if it thinks fit, to call the examiner and examine him as to the subject-matter of the report.

( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the report in the case before me being not by a Government Scientific expert, as REFERRED TO to in sub-section (4) of section 293, formal proof would be required. What happened in this case is that the report was tendered by the investigating Officer and was admitted in evidence without objection as to its admissibility or mode of proof. It appears that at no stage of the trial not even at the stage of final arguments was any such objection taken. It is only now in appeal that objection as to its rnode of proof is being raised. The question is, can such an objection be allowed to be taken now? The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant can raise such an objection even in appeal and seeks to rely upon a judgment of this court in Attar Singh v. State, (Delhi Administration) 1994 (III) AD (Delhi) 626.

( 7 ) BEFORE I proceed to deal with the judgment in Attar Singh s case, I may hasten to add that in none of the judgments REFERRED TO to above, the question posed by me was raised or considered.

( 8 ) IN Attar Singh s case objection was raised by the respondent State that mode of proof having been challenged in the trial court, it was not open to the appellant to raise it for the first time in appeal and in support reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Phool K