JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.7.93, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 8/15 of the Narotic Drugs and Pshychotropic Substances Act and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, for the offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subsequence Act (for short, `The Act). The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.11.91, Sub-Inspector Mani Ram of Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, alongwith Constables Sukhmahendra Singh, was on the routine patrolling duty and went to Check Post, Sadhuwali. While he was at the Check Post, Sadhuwali, he received some information at about 11.30 a.m. that one person from Gang Canal Link Channel side is coming with the opium poppy. They made a Nakabandi on the bridge and at about 11.50 a.m., the accused come there. He was coming on feet and was carrying a bag. The accused was informed that if he wanted to get himself searched before a gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate then he may be taken before him, upon which the accused said that he had no objection if the search is made by the Sub-Inspector himself. The search of the accused was then made in the presence of two independent witnesses, viz., PW 1 Lal Chand and PW 2 Sadhu Ram, and on search two kilograms of opium poppy was found in four paper-bags. The article recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant was weighed and scaled in the presence of two motbir witnesses, viz., PW 1 Lal Chand and PW 2 Sadhu Ram, the accused was arrested, he was brought to the Police Station, the F.I.R. was registered and thereafter the investigation was conducted by PW 6 Mani Ram, the charge- sheet was filed against the accused and the accused- appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Section 8/15 of the Act. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined six witnesses. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined six witnesses. PW 1 Lal Chand and PW 2 Sadhu Ram are the two Motbir witnesses, in whose presence the search of the accused-appellant was taken, the recoveries were made, the accused was arrested and the site plan was prepared. PSW 3 Sukhmahendra Singh is the Foot Constable, who accompanied PW 6 Mani Ram in the routine checking at the Check Post, Sadhuwali, where the information from some Mukhbir that the accused was carrying opium-poppy, was received and thereafter they proceeded towards the canal bridge, made a Nakabandi, searched the accused, made the recoveries and arrested the accused. PW 4 Bhanwar Singh is the Constable posted at the relevant time at Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, who took the samples for F.S.L. examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and PW 5 Jugal Kishore is the Malkhana Incharge at Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, with whom the sealed articles were deposited by PW 6 Mani Ram and from where they were taken by PW 4 Bhanwar Singh for F.S.L. Examination to the aforesaid Laboratory. Both these witnesses have stated that the seals on the samples remained intact till they remained in their possession. PW 6 Mani Ram in the Sub-Inspector Police, posted at Police Station; Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, who, while on routine patrolling duty, received the information, did the Nakabandi near the Link Canal Bridge, found the accused coming on foot with a bag, stopped him, searched him, made the recoveries, arrested the accused and after completion of investigation presented the challan against the appellant. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compliance of Section 42 of the Act has not been made in the present case as the information received by PW 6 Mani Ram has not been recorded nor was it sent to the immediate officer superior and as the compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act has not been made, therefore, the trial and conviction of the appellant stand vitiated. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the investigation was made by PW 6 Mani Ram, who searched, seized and arrested the accused, lodged the F.I.R. and investigated into the matter. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the investigation was made by PW 6 Mani Ram, who searched, seized and arrested the accused, lodged the F.I.R. and investigated into the matter. The investigation should have been conducted by some another person and as the investigation was conducted by the complainant himself, therefore, the whole trial stands vitiated. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW 6 Mani Ram was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, posted at Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, and was not the Station House Officer, therefore, he was not authorised, under the provisions of the Act, to search, seize, arrest and investigate into the matter and, therefore, the investigation, made by PW 6 Mani Ram was wholly without jurisdiction, which vitiates the whole trial. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below and submitted that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act are not applicable in the present case as the search was made at the public place on the bridge and, therefore, Section 43 of the Act is applicable, which does not require recording of any information and despatching the same to his immediate officer superior. So far as the contention that the investigation was conducted by the same person who made the search, seizure and arrest of the accused, is concerned, in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of: the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (JT 1994(2) SC 108) , PW 6 Mani Ram was competent to conduct the investigation after making search, seizure and arrest of the appellant. It has, also, been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that PW 6 Mani Ram was vested with the powers under Section 42 and 43 of the Act. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. PW 6 Mani Ram along with PW 3 Sukhmahendra Singh, was on routine patrolling duty. They had gone to check the vehicles and at that time PW 6 Mani Ram received the information that the accused is carrying opium-poppy and, therefore, he made the Nakabandi and saw the accused coming there. 5. PW 6 Mani Ram along with PW 3 Sukhmahendra Singh, was on routine patrolling duty. They had gone to check the vehicles and at that time PW 6 Mani Ram received the information that the accused is carrying opium-poppy and, therefore, he made the Nakabandi and saw the accused coming there. He, after informing the accused that if he wanted himself to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate then the search may be made in the presence of such officer, but the accused-appellant showed his willingness to be searched by PW 6 Mani Ram himself and, therefore, the search was made in the presence of the Motbir witnesses and on search, two kilograms of opium- poppy was recovered from four paper-bags. The search was made at a public place on the main road over the bridge of the canal and, therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act are not applicable and it is only Section 43 of the Act which is applicable in the present case. As such, the contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is devoid of any force. 6. The next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that it was PW 6 Mani Ram who searched the accused, seized the opium-poppy, arrested the accused, lodged the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation, and as the search, seizure and arrest and the investigation was made by the same person, therefore, the trial and the conviction stand vitiated and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. I have gone-through the - cord. After going through the record of the case, I am of the opinion that after the search, seizure, arrest and lodging the F.I.R., the investigation was made by PW 6 Mani Ram. In view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in : the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (JT 1994(2) 108) , it is clear that the investigation can be conducted by the same person who has made the search, seizure, arrest and lodged the F.I.R. It has been held by the Supreme Court in : the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh , that "When a police officer carrying-on the investigation including search, seizure or arrest, empowered under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., comes across a person being in possession of the narcotic drug or Psychotropic substances then two aspects will arise. If he happens to be one of those empowered officers under the Act, also, then he must follow thereafter the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act and continue the investigation as provided thereunder. If, on the other hand, he is not empowered, then the obvious thing he should do is that he must inform the empowered officer under the N.D.P.S. Act who should thereafter proceed from that stage in accordance with the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act." The position of law, which emerges from the judgment of Balbir Singh's case is that it is only the empowered officer who can conduct the investigation and if an empowered officer comes across a person being in possession of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and had made the search, seizure and arrested the accused under the Act then he can proceed with the investigation. It is not necessary, as per the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is only the other officer who should proceed with the investigation and the person, that the officer who has made the search or seized the article or arrested the accused or lodged the report, becomes disentitled to carry-on the further investigation. The officer who has seized the articles, arrested the accused and lodged the report, can be said to be a `complainant' only in a technical sense in view of the Explanation appended to Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the Act, which defines the word `complainant'.An inclusive definition of `investigation' has been given in Sub-clause (b) to Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which investigation includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence, conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by the Magistrate in this behalf. As per the definition, it consists of: (i) proceeding to the spot; (ii) the arrest of the suspected offender; (iii) the collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence; (iv) the search of the place and seizure of the things; (v) ascertainment of the facts and circumstances and preparation of the site-plan etc.,; (vi) recording the statements of various witnesses; and (vii) thereafter to form an opinion whether from the evidence collected by the investigating officer, any case to proceed-with against the accused is made-out. Thus, if after receiving the information from some secret source when the investigating officer proceeded towards the place to arrest the accused and to make the search and seizure and if he found that some contravention of the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act has been made then it is in the process of investigation. The Act does not envisage the investigation by two separate persons-one, up to the stage of arrest of the accused, search and seizure and thereafter by another officer. The investigating officer, who made the search, seized the articles, arrested the accused and lodged the report, who was authorised under the N.D.P.S. Act to investigate, was, thus, competent to proceed with the investigation in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of: the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh . There is no provision cither in the N.D.P.S. Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which any illegality or irregularity in the investigation would render the trial illegal. In the absence of any such provision, any irregularity or illegality in the investigation, thus, cannot vitiate the trial or conviction. 7. The last contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW 6 Mani Ram, who arrested the accused, made the recoveries, completed the investigation and submitted the challan, was not the person authorised under the Act and, therefore, the whole trial and conviction stand vitiated. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 42 of the Act, the State Government, vide S.O. No. 115 dated 16.10.86, authorised all Inspectors of Police and Sub-Inspectors of Police, posted as Station House Officer, to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42 of the act with immediate effect : provided that when such power is exercised by the police officer other than the Inspector of Police of the area concerned, such officer shall immediately hand-over the person arrested and the articles seized, to the concerned Police Inspector or the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned. The power under Section 42 of the Act has been given to such of the Sub-Inspectors of Police who are posted as Station House Officer of the Police Stations and not all the Sub-Inspectors. The power under Section 42 of the Act has been given to such of the Sub-Inspectors of Police who are posted as Station House Officer of the Police Stations and not all the Sub-Inspectors. The search, recovery, arrest and the investigation in the present case were made by PW 6 Mani Ram, who was only the Sub-Inspector of Police and was not the Station House Officer of Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, which is clear from the statement of PW 3 Sukhmahendra Singh, who, at the relevant time, was the Foot Constable posted at Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, and who accompanied PW 6 Mani Ram on patrolling duty. He has stated that on 25.11.91, C.I. Umaid Singh was the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, and on that day, he along with PW 6 Mani Ram, Sub-Inspector of Police, had gone to Check Post, Sadhuwali, for checking the vehicles. As PW 6 Mani Ram was not the police officer authorised under the Act, therefore, the search, seizure, arrest and the investigation made by him were done by a wholly unauthorised person, which vitiates the trial and conviction of the accused-appellant. The judgment, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 8. In the result, the appeal, filed by accused-appellant Jagat Ram, is allowed. The judgment dated 17.7.93, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, is set- aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is in jail and be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. *******