JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:---The accused-appellant Babukhan alias Chini Babu s/o Rehamankhan who is the resident of Yasin Plot, Tajbag (Motha), Nagpur is convicted by the 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur for the offence punishable under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Testimony of P.W. 6 Bhaskar would show that he received an information in Crime Branch Office on 14-5-1991 at about 2.00 P.M. that the accused-appellant Babu Chini who was staying at Tajbagh (Motha), Nagpur possessed brown sugar and used to sell it to the customers. The said information was recorded in Station Diary Sanha (Ex. 37) and then the information was also reported to the superior Officer, namely, Shri Paraskar, Assistant Commissioner of Police by him (Ex. 31). On the basis of the said information, the Head Constable Bhaskar along with the Police Staff went towards Tajbagh. On enquiry being made about the accused-appellant Babukhan alias Chini Babu, he was informed that the accused was selling brown sugar on the road. Two panchas Vasant and Ibrahim Khan were called and they were explained the confidential information and were also asked as to whether they would act as panchas and which they willingly did. The accused-appellant Chini Babu was found near the bridge and the Police Party headed by P.W. 6 Bhaskar surrounded the accused Babukhan alias Chini Balu and he was asked as to whether the possessed brown sugar and thereafter search of the accused-appellant was taken. The accused-appellant was asked by P.W. 6 as to whether he wanted to have a search before Gazetted Officer or Executive Magistrate, but the accused-appellant refused. The accused-appellant was also asked to take search of Police and panchas which the accused-appellant did. Then personal search of accused was taken. On search of the person of the accused-appellant one closed plastic bag which had 11 small packets was found. The packets were opened and each packet was found to have brownish colour powder of about 50 m.g. Samples were taken and the remaining contents of the packets were sealed. Samples were wrapped and seal affixed. On search of the person of the accused-appellant one closed plastic bag which had 11 small packets was found. The packets were opened and each packet was found to have brownish colour powder of about 50 m.g. Samples were taken and the remaining contents of the packets were sealed. Samples were wrapped and seal affixed. The samples were sent for chemical analysis and these were found to have brown sugar. The case was registered and the accused-appellant was arrested. The accused-appellant possessed contraband and the prosecution sought to prove its case during the trial by the evidence of P.W. 6, Bhaskar, Chemical Analyser's report (Exh. 27), copy of the Station Diary (Exh. 37), the copy of information as sent by P.W. 6 Bhaskar to the superior officer vide Exh. 31. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record oral as well as documentary held that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was found in possession of brown sugar and the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act were complied with. The trial Court also found that the accused-appellant committed an offence punishable under section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and consequently convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. The aforesaid facts and the findings recorded by the trial Court have not been challenged by the learned Counsel Shri S.V. Deshpande, appointed by this Court on behalf of the accused-appellant. However, Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant strenuously urged that the prosecution case was affected because P.W. 6 Bhaskar was not empowered by the State either by general or special order to carry out search and arrest of the offender under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Mr. Deshpande urged that Bhaskar (P.W. 6) was only Head Constable and he was not competent to act under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In support of his submissions, Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant relied upon the decision of this Court reported in (Syed Jamir Syed Usman v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1996(2) Bom.C.R. 259 . 4. Confronted with the aforesaid arguments urged by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. In support of his submissions, Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant relied upon the decision of this Court reported in (Syed Jamir Syed Usman v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1996(2) Bom.C.R. 259 . 4. Confronted with the aforesaid arguments urged by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. H. Ahmed, placed on record the copy of notification issued by the State Government on 14-11-1985 empowering all Police Officers of and above the rank of Head Constable in the State of Maharashtra to act under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Mr. H. Ahmed submitted that P.W. 6 Bhaskar was Head Constable and by the general order issued by the State Government on 14-11-1985, he was empowered for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 5. Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant, in view of the notification issued by the State Government on 14-11-1985, empowering all Police Officers of and above the rank of Police Head Constable in the State of Maharashtra for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, submitted that though he did not dispute the issuance and publication of the said notification dated 14-11-1985, but since the said notification was not placed before the trial Court, the said document could not help the prosecution and on the basis of the said notification, P.W. 6, Bhaskar could not be held to be empowered for the purposes of the said sub-section (1) of section 42. In support of his submission, Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant referred to section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Mr. Deshpande also relied upon the case : (Alipilla and others v. State of Kerala)2, reported in 1983 Cri.L.J. NOC 185. 6. Undisputedly, the Government of Maharashtra has issued the notification on 14-11-1985 in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by sub-section (1) of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act and by the said notification has empowered all Police Officers of and above the rank of Police Head Constable in the State of Maharashtra for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The said notification dated 14-11-1985 reads as under : : HOME DEPARTMENT : "Mantralaya, Bombay 400 032, dated the 14th November, 1985. The said notification dated 14-11-1985 reads as under : : HOME DEPARTMENT : "Mantralaya, Bombay 400 032, dated the 14th November, 1985. THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 No. BPA 1085/1180/81-A (ii)/PPO-I. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and in supersession of all previous orders or notification issued under section 23 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1980 (II of 1980) and in force in any part of the State, the Government of Maharashtra hereby empowers for the purposes of the said sub-section (1), the following Officers, namely : (1) All the Officers of the Prohibition and Excise Department in the State of Maharashtra of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector. (2) The Petty Officers of the Prohibition and Excise Department in the State of Maharashtra. (3) All Collectors in charge of Revenue Administration in the State of Maharashtra. (4) All Assistant Collectors and Deputy Collectors in charge of Revenue Administration in the State of Maharashtra. (5) All Tahsildar, Additional Tahsildars and Naib Tahsildars in the State of Maharashtra. (6) All Police Officers of and above the rank of Head Constable in the State of Maharashtra. (7) All Inspectors appointed under section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (XXIII of 1940), in the State of Maharashtra. By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra." 7. It is thus clear that amongst other officers, the Police Officer of and above the rank of Head Constable in the State of Maharashtra is empowered for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 42 and since, P.W. 6 Bhaskar was admittedly the Head Constable at the relevant time and he would be deemed to have been empowered by the aforesaid general order issued by the State Government and therefore, competent to proceed under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act and for the purposes of section 42(1) of N.D.P.S. Act. The said notification has also been referred to by the Division Bench of this Court in (Deepak Ghanshyam Naik v. State of Maharashtra)3, 1989(1) Bom.C.R. 574 and relying upon the said notification, it has been held that the Head Constable was an officer properly empowered and authorised by the State Government to take search of the person of the accused in that case. 8. 8. At this stage, the judgment of this Court in Syed Jamir v. State of Maharashtra (cited supra) and delivered by one of us sitting singly (R.M. Lodha, J.) may be referred to. In Syed Jamir Syed Usman's case (cited supra), it was observed that the burden was on the prosecution to prove that the person who carried out arrest and seizure was duly authorised under sections 41 and 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act and since the prosecution failed to prove this fact, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentence thereunder was set aside. Neither in the trial in that case the aforesaid notification dated 14-11-1985 was produced by the State to show that the Police Officer of and above the rank of Head Constable was empowered for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, nor before this Court, the Additional Public Prosecutor who appeared on behalf of the State brought to the notice of this Court about the said notification. The notification dated 14-11-1985 was neither placed on record at any stage, nor was brought to the notice of the Court. Even the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1989 Cri.L.J. 1181, in which the said notification dated 14-11-1985 has been referred (para 12 of the said judgment) was not cited. In the absence of any material either before the trial Court or before this Court that the Head Constable who conducted the said search and seizure was empowered to do so either by general or special order of the State Government of Maharashtra, the case turned since there was no material to show that the person who conducted the search and seizure was competent and empowered to do so. Had the notification dated 14-11-1985 empowering the Police Officers of and above the rank of Head Constable been placed on record even before this Court in appeal, we are afraid, it could not have been held that the person who conducted the search and seizure was not empowered to do so. Had the notification dated 14-11-1985 empowering the Police Officers of and above the rank of Head Constable been placed on record even before this Court in appeal, we are afraid, it could not have been held that the person who conducted the search and seizure was not empowered to do so. Now, since the notification dated 14-11-1985 empowering all Police Officers of and above the rank of Head Constable has been placed on record before this Court in the present appeal, the only question which is required to be seen is whether the said notification can be considered by this Court in appeal and whether on the basis of the said notification it can be held that P.W. 6. Bhaskar was empowered Police Officer for the purposes of search and seizure under the N.D.P.S. Act. 9. Section 81 of the Evidence Act reads as under : Section 81 : "Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, Private Acts of Parliament and other documents- The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London Gazette or (any Official Gazette, or the Government Gazette) of any colony, dependency or possession of the British crown or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament (of the United Kingdom) printed by the Queen's Printer and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody." 10. In (Nanak Chand v. Emperor)4, A.I.R. 1931 Lahore 273, relying upon (Bawa Sarup Singh v. Emperor)5, A.I.R. 1925 Lahore 289, it has been held as under : "Where a copy of a Gazette Notification was produced before the High Court in a revision and the Court presumed the genuineness of the Gazette under section 81, Evidence Act, and held the production of it in the High Court sufficient even if it had not been tendered in evidence before." 11. As observed above, Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has not disputed the correctness of the said notification, nor he disputed the issuance and publication of the said notification. As observed above, Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has not disputed the correctness of the said notification, nor he disputed the issuance and publication of the said notification. Once the notification has been produced before this Court and its genuineness is not under challenge, the production of the said document before this Court would be sufficient to show that the persons mentioned in the said notification were empowered for the purposes of search and seizure under the N.D.P.S. Act and it would not materially affect the merits of the prosecution case, even if the said notification was not tendered in evidence before the trial Court. Under section 81 of the Evidence Act, the genuineness of the said Notification is presumed and in the case before us, even its genuineness is not disputed and therefore, on the basis of the said notification, it can be said that the prosecution has proved that P.W. 6 Bhaskar was empowered Officer being of the rank of Head Constable for the purposes of search and seizure under the N.D.P.S. Act. 12. Such technical objection about non-production of the notification empowering the Officers by the State Government under section 42 of N.D.P.S. Act could always be avoided, if the prosecution agency and the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State act diligently and produce such document before the trial Court itself. N.D.P.S. Act came into force with effect from 16-9-1985 and immediately thereafter on 14-11-1985, the State Government has issued the notification empowering category of Officers for search and seizure under N.D.P.S. Act, but despite that, in large number of cases, we find that neither such notification has been placed on record in trial before the trial Court nor in appeal before this Court. Such discrepancy could be avoided by the State and the prosecution agency by production of the said notification before the trial Court. Be that as it may, since now the notification has been placed on record by the Additional Public Prosecutor, whereby all Police Offices of and above the rank of Head Constable have been empowered by the State Government for the purposes of search and seizure under the N.D.P.S. Act and therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused that P.W. 6 Bhaskar was not empowered to conduct the search and seizure under the N.D.P.S. Act. 13. 13. Now a word about a decision cited by Mr. Deshpande reported in 1983 Cri.L.J. NOC 185. It is unsafe to rely on the Notes of Cases, since it cannot be found out in what context the observations have been made. Even otherwise in 1983 Cri.L.J. NOC 185, it has been observed that publication in the Gazette can be proved by producing the copy of the Gazette publication or in other appropriate way. The copy of the notification has been placed on record before this Court and on the basis thereof and for the reasons aforesaid and the fact that its genuineness is not under challenge, the copy of the notification can be relied upon without any hesitation. No other point was raised. 14. In the result, this Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1992 is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. The appointed Counsel be paid fee at the rate fixed by this Court. Appeal dismissed. -----