( 1 ) "whether the report of the Public Analyst containing bare opinion, without there being any full and complete data disclosing the tests or experiments performed by him, can be attached any probative evidentiary value to be used against the accused for recording the order of conviction and sentence against him ?" This in short is the question that arises for consideration in the context and back-drop of the following facts-situation.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case, as per the evidence of the P. S. I.-Jawansinh P. Barad (P. W.-3, Exb.-9) is that when on 6-1-1988 at about 19-45 hours, he was on duty at Sagrampura Police Station, Surat, he received an information that one person was selling charas in a bye-lane known as "dhabuwali Gali". Acting on this tip-off, he immediately requisitioned the services of two panch witnesses, viz. , Prasanna Shankarrao Shinde (P. W.- l, Exh.-6)and Mukesh Bholanath Trivedi (examined by the accused as the defence witness) and in company of other two Police Constables, viz. , Vijay chetram Patil (P. W.-2, Esh.-8) and Balvant Arjan and Ganpat Badalsing (not examined) proceeded to the said dhabuwali Gali for raid and reached there at 20-00 p. m. On seeing the raiding party approaching, one person started running who was immediately chased and caught on the spot. On interrogation in the presence of Panchas, he disclosed his name as Annu @ Mahmad hanif Shaikh Ibrahim. Thereafter, on taking search of his person, from the back-side pocket of his pant, a small pouch was taken out which contained about 10 grams of charas and while searching the other pocket currency notes of Rs. 4. 00 were recovered. These muddamal articles were thereafter seized in the presence of two panchas and were wrapped up in a packet. The same thereafter was affixed with two slips containing signatures of panchas and was sealed by applying wax-seal bearing mark "psi-JPB". After the search and seizure formality was over, the accused was arrested and a complaint Exh. 10 was filed by P. S. I.-Barad against him on the very day at 21-45 hours. before P. S. I, (name not legible) Athwa Line Police Station, surat, for the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 20 (b) (ii) of the Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "narcotic Act") The same was thereafter further investigated by the complainant P. S I.-Barad himself who recorded statement of various persons who accompanied him at the time of the raid. Thereafter, P. S. I.-Barad forwarded the sealed packet of muddamal charas to the S. P. (Western Division), Surat, with a forwarding letter dated 6-1-1988 (Exh. 11) which appears to have been received by him on the same day. This in turn was forwarded to the Forensic Science laboratory on 15-2-1988 with the Police Constable Dalpatsinh. The Public analyst thereafter examining the same forwarded his report Exh. 12 stating therein that the same was cannabis sativa i. e. , "charas", to P. S. I.-Barad who on the basis of the same submitted a charge-sheet against the appellantaccused for the aforesaid alleged offence, to stand trial before the learned sessions Judge, Surat.

( 3 ) AT trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Not only that but he also examined Mukesh Bholanath Trivedi, who figured as second panch witness, as his defence witness.

( 4 ) THE trial Court finding the prosecution evidence trust-worthy, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused for the aforesaid alleged offence and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default, to undergo further R. I. for one year. It is under these circumstances that the appellant feeling aggrieved by the same has filed the present appeal.

( 5 ) MR. E. E. Saiyed, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the impugned order of conviction and sentence was ex-fade illegal being perverse, as the report of the Public Analyst (Exh. 12) which is the sole base to sustain the order of conviction