JUDGMENT Ashok Agarwal, J. - The Appellant, who has been convicted under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. l,00,000/-in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years, has rued this appeal. 2. The accused was charged in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Naisk in Sessions Case No. 88 of 1986 for having on the 27th of February 1986 at about 6.20 p.m. near Bhadrakali Taxi Stand close to the public urinal in Nasik city found in possession of heroin (Gard), a psychotropic substance of the value of Rs. 40/- which he was found selling to witness (P.W. 2) Gulam Gaus Jilani. 3. It was the case of the prosecution, in short, that P.S.I. Patil on receipt of information that the accused was selling brown sugar at the aforesaid place, arranged for a trip. Two panch witnesses P.W. 3, Rajendra Bhujbal and P.W. 4, Madhukar Bhagwat and the aforesaid punter P. W. 2, Jilani were called at the police station. The punter was given a currency note of Rs. 10/- for purchasing the brown sugar from the accused. A panchanama Exhibit 7 was drawn up by P.S.I. Patil in the presence of two panch witnesses in respect of handing over of the currency note to the punter and about giving him instructions to give a signal after the purchase of brown sugar from the accused. 4. Thereafter, the raiding party went near the Bhadrakali Taxi Stand. The punter P.W. 2, Jilani and panch witness P.W. 3, Bhujbal went towards the accused while the other members of the raiding party waited at some distance away near Shelar Hotel The punter thereafter purchased one small plastic bottle containing brown sugar from the accused on paying him Rs, 10/-, which was handed over for the purpose of the said purchase. Thereafter, the punter gave the signal. The rest of the raiding party rushed to the spot and accosted the accused. The search of the accused was taken in the presence of both the panchas witnesses and the punter. The accused was found in possession of four other small quarter bottles containing brown sugar. He was also found in possession of currency note which was given to the punter. The search of the accused was taken in the presence of both the panchas witnesses and the punter. The accused was found in possession of four other small quarter bottles containing brown sugar. He was also found in possession of currency note which was given to the punter. The quarter bottle purchased by the punter was also seized from the punter along with the articles found on the person of the accused A panchanama. Exhibit 8 in regard to be aforesaid events was drawn up. The offence was registered against the accused vide Crime No. 167 of 1986. The Muddemal article, viz. the sample quarter bottles, were sent to the Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad through a carrier Police Constable P.W. 5, Sahebrao Shardul. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Analyser, the accused was prosecuted. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty. According to him, the real culprit had escaped and the Police had falsely implicated him out of suspicion. 6. At the trial the prosecution examined P.W. 1, Police Constable Shanker Keru Tambe, the complainant, who had lodged the First Information Report Exhibit 9. It examined the punter, P.W. 2 Gulam Gaus Jilani, the two panch witnesses P.W. 3, Rajendra Vishnupant Bhujbal and P.W. 4, Madhukar Trimbak Bhagwat. It also examined P.W. 5, Sahebrao Savliram Shardul, the carrier of the contraband to the Chemical Analyser. It finally examined P.W. 6, P.S.I. Ashok Bhikaji Patil, the investigating officer, who in turn, produced the report of the Chemical Analyser Exhibit 19, the memo regarding the marked currency note of Rs. 10/- handed over to the punter Exhibit 7 and the panchanama regarding the seizure of the contraband and the arrest of the accused Exhibit 8. 7. The aforesaid prosecution evidence having found favour with the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, he proceeded to record the aforesaid impugned order of conviction and sentence. Being aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred the present appeal. 8. Mr. Miranda, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal, submitted that the report of the Chemical Analyser Ext. 19 had been got produced along with the forwarding letter of the investigating officer Ext. 13 and was got proved in his substantive evidence. After the said report was exhibited, the accused had by his application Ext.15 prayed that the Chemical Analyser, who had analysed the contraband articles' should be offered for cross-examination. 19 had been got produced along with the forwarding letter of the investigating officer Ext. 13 and was got proved in his substantive evidence. After the said report was exhibited, the accused had by his application Ext.15 prayed that the Chemical Analyser, who had analysed the contraband articles' should be offered for cross-examination. However, the learned Judge of the Trial - Court by his order dated the 19th of Sep. 1986 was pleased to reject the same. According to Mr. Miranda, this has caused miscarriage of justice and has deprived the accused of a valuable right to challenge the contents and the authenticity of the Chemical Analyser's report. 9. Seeing the force of the aforesaid argument, we, by our order dated the 14th of August 1989, directed the issue of witness summons to Mr. V.W. Kamble, the Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Aurangabad, to appear before us for giving evidence in the case. Accordingly, the said Vilas Kamble was examined in this Court on the 29th of August 1989. 10. It is needless to go into the details of the various controversies raised by Mr. Miranda in the appeal as in our view the impugned order of conviction and sentence is liable to be quashed on two short grounds: (1) that it has not been established that the Chemical Analyser's report Exhibit 19 pertains to the very contraband which was seized from the accused In other words, the necessary link between the contraband attached and the report of the Chemical Analyser is missing; and (2) that Mr. Vilas Kamble, the Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Aurangabad, who has analysed the contraband, was not duly authorised as provided under Rule 2(c) of the Maharashtra Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985. 11. A perusal of the evidence of P.W. 5 Shardul, who had carried the contraband to the office of the Chemical Analyser, makes it clear that he had carried the sample packets and delivered the same on the 23rd of June 1986. The acknowledgement Exhibit 17 supports his aforesaid version. However, if one peruses the evidence of P.W. 7, Vilas Kamble, the Assistant Director of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Aurangabad, it is apparent that he had received the sample on the 4th of July 1986 and this consistent with the terms of his report Exhibit 19 which is dated the 3rd of September 1986. However, if one peruses the evidence of P.W. 7, Vilas Kamble, the Assistant Director of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Aurangabad, it is apparent that he had received the sample on the 4th of July 1986 and this consistent with the terms of his report Exhibit 19 which is dated the 3rd of September 1986. The said report clearly recites that the contraband was duly received in his office on the 4th of July, 1986. When confronted with the deposition of P.W. 5, Police Constable Shardul and the acknowledgement Exhibit 17 produced by him, he stated that he did not agree that the sample in this case concerning the present Crime No. 167/86 was received by his Office on the 23rd of June, 1986. According to his papers, it was received on the 4th of July 1986. He confirmed that his Office had received only one packet counting five phials in respect of Criminal No. 167 of 1986 on the 4th of July, 1986. A further reference to the report of the Chemical Analyser Exhibit 19 would show that the contraband had been received at the hands of P.C. No. 1490, whereas P.W. 5, Shardul bears P.C. No. 1475. The aforesaid material would indicate that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the report of the Chemical Analyser Exhibit 19 pertains to the very contraband which was alleged to have been seized from the accused. 12. On being asked regarding the authorisation, P.W. 7, Vilas Kamble deposed that he was authorised to conduct analysis of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in writing by the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. On being requisitioned, he produced the authorisation dated the 11th of March 1987 at Exhibit 19-A. According to him, this was the only authorisation that he had. However, it is seen that the analysis in question was carried out prior to the aforesaid authorisation, i.e. on the 3rd of September 1986. Rule 2(c) of the Maharashtra Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 defines "Chemical Analyser" to mean the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory and Chemical Analyser to the Government of Maharashtra or the Director, Haffkins Insititue, Bombay or the Assistant Director, Drugs Control Laboratory of Food and Drugs Administration, Griha Nirman Bhavan, Kalanagar, Bandra, Bombay and includes any officer authorised respectively by them in this behalf. Mr. Mr. Vilas Kamble does not claim to be the Chemical Analyser or the Director or Assistant Director as contemplated in the aforesaid definition. He is not authorised by any of them on the day which he carried out the analysis in respect of the contraband in question. Hence, it will have to be held that on the date on which he carried out the analysis be was not authorised. Consequently, no reliance could be placed on the report of the Chemical Analyser's report Exhibit 19. 13. In view of the aforesaid lacuna, the impugned order of conviction and sentence is liable to be quashed. 14. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The order of conviction and sentence dated the 23rd of September 1986 of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 88 of 1986 is set aside and the accused is acquitted and directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in some other case. Fine if paid shall be refunded. Appeal allowed.