( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against thejudgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 6/03/1990,whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act andsentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay afine of Rs. 1 lakh.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that PW-9s. 1. Inder Singh, on August I,1988, received a secret information that two persons present near Sujansingh Park were having charas in their possession. Upon receipt of theinformation, a raiding party was constituted under the supervision of SHOTughlaq Road. Besides the SHO, the raiding party consisted of S. I. Ramkumar PW-5, S. I. Inder Singh PW-9 and Constable Sat Dev PW-4. ACPAjay Kumar PW-6 was also informed, who is alleged to have reached thespot. Alongwith the raiding party, a public witness PW-3 Shanker Lal, ascooter driver was also associated.

( 3 ) AROUND 4 p. m. of the same day viz. 1/08/1988 ths appellantwas apprehended at Maharishi Raman Marg near Sujan Singh Park andfrom his possession 4 kg. of charas was recovered 100 gms. of charas wasseparated from the seized case property as sample. The remaining quantityof charas and the sample were placed in two different parcels and weresealed with the seal of l. S. and S. L. D. , belonging to SI Inder Singh andsho S. L. Dua respectively. The seals after use were given to Shanker Lal,pw-3. After the receipt of the CFSL report, charge sheet was filed againstappellant in the Court of Shri S. L. Khanna Additional Sessions Judge, whoafter framing the charge and recording the evidence led in the case passedthe impugned judgment.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellantwas falsely implicated and was actually arrested on 31/07/1988 from hisvillage. He submits that SHO and ACP were not present at the spot whenthe recovery was effected as the memos alleged to have been prepared atthe spot do not bear their signatures. He further urges that the publicwitness has not supported the case of the prosecution as according to himno recovery was made in his presence. Learned Counsel also submits thatearlier to the present case, the appellant was falsely implicated in 14 casesand in all those cases he has been acquitted. It is the submission of thelearned Counsel that the appellant was implicated in these cases because of adispute which the latter had with one Giani Ram, a relation of Inspectormahinder Singh. Learned Counsel also points out that the Vigilence Department had instituted an enquiry in regard to the institution of the false casesagainst the appellant and according to him, the Vigilance Departmentreturned a finding against the said police officer. Learned Counsel statesthat the CFSL form was not deposited in the Malkhana nor the same wassent to the CFSL. He contends that there are material contradictions inthe statements of the prosecution witnesses and no credence can be placedon their testimony. Finally he submits that the so called report of (hecfsl Ex. PW-9/d is not admissible in evidence under Section 293 of thecode of Criminal Procedure as the same has not been made by an authorityspecified therein.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitsthat the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer fromany infirmity whatsoever. He contends that there are no material contradictions between the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He also submitsthat the evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that there was notampering with the case property and the sample and the report of thecfsl gave positive test for charas.

( 6 ) I have considered the respective submissions of the learnedcounsel for the parties and find that this appeal can be disposed of on ashort point. Perusal of the report Ex. Piv-9/d shows that the same hasbeen made by Mr. C. L. Bansal, Sr. Scientific Assistant, Central Forensicscience Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation. This report is not bya Director or Dep