Bhargava, J.—This is an application in revision by Jasia against his conviction under sec. 9 of the Indian Opium Act. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The facts which led to his prosecution are that on 3rd June, 1961 Shri Tejraj Singh Circle Inspector (P.W. 2) on receiving information that the petitioner and one Biram Bishnoi of Amli-ki-Dhani were secretly carrying on trade in opium, organised a raid arid took one Kishorilal (P.W. 1) with him. When the party reached near Amli-ki-Dhani, they saw the petitioner coming from the opposite side with a bag with him. He was stopped and on a search of the bag being taken, 2-1/4 seers of contraband opium was found in it. A sample of 2-1/2 tolas was taken from this material and sent for examination to the Chief Public Analyst, Jaipur. The report of the Chief Public Analyst disclosed that the material sent to him for examination was opium. Therefore, the petitioner was prosecuted under sec. 9 of the Opium Act. 3. In support of the prosecution case, Kishorilal (P.W.1), Tejraj Singh (P.W.2) and Devraj (P.W.4) gave evidence to prove that a bag containing 2-1/4 seers of opium was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. They also proved that 2-1/4 tolas of Opium was taken from the bulk which was found in the bag and was sent for examination to the Chief Public Analyst. Bhanwarlal (P.W. 3) was examined to prove that the sample of opium in a sealed condition was given to him to be taken to the Chief Public Analyst. The report of the Chief Public Analyst (Ex. P.3) was also relied on by the prosecution to prove that the material found in possession of the petitioner was opium. 4. The petitioner denied the allegations and stated that it was Biram who was carrying that bag from which opium is said to have been recovered. On seeing the Police party, Biram threw that bag on the ground and ran away. Since the police could not apprehend Biram, they caught him while he was passing by that way and foisted the recovery of opium on him. 5....... ...... 6....... ...... 7. On seeing the Police party, Biram threw that bag on the ground and ran away. Since the police could not apprehend Biram, they caught him while he was passing by that way and foisted the recovery of opium on him. 5....... ...... 6....... ...... 7. The only contention which deserves consideration is that whether the courts below were right in admitting Ex. P. 3 in evidence without it being proved by the statement of the Chief Public Analyst. In this connection reliance is placed on behalf of the State on an order dated 15.6.1961 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 27th July, 1961 whereby the State Government declared the Chief, Public Analyst, State of Rajasthan to be Chemical Examiner for the purpose of sec. 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is urged that the report in this case is dated 28th August, 1951 and was tendered in evidence after 15th June, 1961 and as such could be used as evidence under sec. 510 even though the Chemical Examiner was not examined as a witness at the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand says that the alleged sample of opium was received by the Chief Public Analyst on 9th June, 1961 and there is nothing to show that he had not examined it before 15th June, 1961, the date on which he was declared Chemical Examiner. He says that the report would be used an evidence under sec. 510 only if the examination had been conducted by him as a Chamical Examiner i.e., after 15th June, 1961. In my opinion there is no substance in this contention either. The rule of evidence embodied in sec. 510 has not been amended or altered by the order of the State of Rajasthan dated 15th June, 1961. Under sec. 510 a document purporting to be a report under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceedings under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. The State of Rajasthan by its order dated 15th June, 1961 declared that the Chief Public Analyst would also be its Chemical examiner for the purposes of sec. 510 of the Code. The State of Rajasthan by its order dated 15th June, 1961 declared that the Chief Public Analyst would also be its Chemical examiner for the purposes of sec. 510 of the Code. All that sec, 510 requires is that the document which is sought to be used as evidence in any enquiry or trial should be a report of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government and it should be upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceedings under this Code. So the only question which could be taken into consideration by the court at the time of admitting the report in evidence was whether it was the report of Chemical Examiner to the Government or not and whether it was on any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination and report in the course of proceedings under this Code. If these two conditions were satisfied then there could be no objection to the use of that report as evidence at the trial. On 28th August, 1961, which is the date of the report in this case, Shri P.N. Bhargava, Chief Public Analyst was also Chemical Examiner to the State of Rajasthan by virtue of the order dated 15th June, 1961 and it cannot therefore, be doubted that Ex. P. 3 was the report of Chemical Examiner to the Government. There is also no doubt that the sample was sent to him for his examination and report in the course of investigation under the Code. Both conditions being thus satisfied, the report Ex. P. 3 could be used as evidence at the trial. In the present case there is nothing to show that the examination of the sample was made before 15th June, 1961. This however, would not prevent it from being used as evidence provided the aforesaid conditions laid down in sec. 510 are satisfied. Sub-sec. 2 of sec. 510 makes ample provision for testing the report of the Chemical Examiner; his examination in the court if the court or the parties so desire. No such application was made before the trial court for examining the Chemical Examiner probably because the petitioner himself admitted that the substance which was found in the bag was opium. That being the case I am of the view that Ex. No such application was made before the trial court for examining the Chemical Examiner probably because the petitioner himself admitted that the substance which was found in the bag was opium. That being the case I am of the view that Ex. P. 3 was rightly used as evidence in this case for holding that opium was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, been rightly convicted. Looking to the quantity of opium recovered from the possession of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the sentence passed on him is excessive. 8. There is no force in this revision; it is hereby rejected. The petitioner is on bail and he shall surrender to it to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.