The provisions of Chapter V of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, are mandatory and must be followed in all cases involving offenses under the Act.

1. Illogical, as it may look, the appellant who has been held guilty u/s. 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) for having been found in possession of 50 gms. of opium on 17th December, 1985, has been awarded a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 , But that, as has been observed by the trial Court, is the dictate of law, the validity of which is not under challenge before me. The facts found to have been established against him are as follows.

2. On 17th December, 1985, when a police party consisting of Head Constable Sumel Singh PW 3, Constable Tarsem Lal PW 1 and two more Constables was returning from patrol duty, and was within the revenue limits of Village Jhandi at about 5.30 p.m., it saw the appellant coming from the side of that village. A quick turning back by the appellant on seeing the party, aroused its suspicion, and Head Constable Sumel Singh apprehended him for purposes of interrogation and search. As a result of that, the police party recovered 50 gms. of opium, wrapped in a glazed paper, from the right side pocket of his pants. Out of this bulk, a sample of 5 gms. was taken. The two parts of the opium were made into two different parcels which were properly sealed, bearing the impression "SS", of HC Sumel Singh and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA, attested by Constable Tarsam Lal PW 1 and Constable Yudhbir Singh. The seal was handed over to PW 1. Ruga Ex.PB was sent to Police Station Hariana through Constable Tirath Singh for the registration of a case. Formal F.I.R.Ex.PB/1 was recorded by ASI Rattan Singh PW 2. Besides preparing the rough site plan Ex.PC and recording the statements of the witnesses, Sumel Singh PW 3 on reaching the police station deposited the two sealed packets of opium with Moharrir Head Constable Arun Kumar on the same day. On receipt of the report Ex.PD from the Chemical Examiner, Punjab, a report u/s. 173 was submitted against the appellant and as a result of the trial that followed, he has been convicted and sentenced as indicated above.

3. His defence u/s. 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, was that of total innocence and false implication. The trial court, however, rejected this defence in the light of the statements of Constable Tarsem Lal PW 1 and Head Constable Sumel Singh PW 3 besides the other supporting evidence, such as the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PD.

4. The primary submission of Mr. P. S. Mann, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, now is that Sumel Singh, Head Constable (P.W. 3) was neither a police officer who was empowered through a general or special order of the State Government to effect the arrest or conduct the search of the appellant under the Act, nor was he an officer authorised by any such officer of the State Government and in view of that he could not validly investigate the offences under the Act. What is highlighted by the learned counsel is that the provisions of Chapter V of the Act governing the procedure which is to be followed in such cases has been given a complete go-by by the trial court and the conviction of the appellant has been recorded as if these provisions were not at all applicable to the case. As against this, the learned counsel for the State forthrightly puts that a combined reading of Ss.37 and 51 of the Act which lay down that notwithstanding any thing contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence punishable under the Act shall be cognizable and the provisions of the Code, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, shall apply to all arrests, searches and seizures under the Act, the investigation and trial of the case has rightly been conducted in accordance with the procedural law laid down in the Code. In a nutshell, the controversy that has been raised by the learned counsel for the parties is as to whether the provisions of Chapter V of the Act are attracted to the facts of this case o