ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The State of Gujarat is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. Six persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 22 read with Section 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act"). Out of the six persons, four were acquitted by the trial court and two were convicted who filed an appeal before the High Court. In support of the appeal primarily two pleas were raised; first related to alleged non-compliance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Act and the second related to the question of custody of the alleged contraband articles after seizure. On both grounds the High Court found against the prosecution. 3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that the material on record justifies the conviction which was made by the trial court. The Police Inspector who had made the seizure had deposed that he had deposited the articles at the police station. Therefore, on the basis of the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory on 1-5-1991, the conviction should have been maintained. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-accused supported the judgment of the High Court. 5. We find that there was really no material brought on record to show as to where the seized articles were kept. The High Court after analysing the evidence on record came to hold that the identity of the articles sent for analysis was not established and it was not established that the articles seized were in fact sent for chemical examination. In view of the judgment of this Court in Valsala v. State of Kerala1 the view of the High Court is in order. It is not the delay in sending the samples which is material. What has to be established is that the seized articles were in proper custody, in proper form and the samples sent to the Chemical Analyst related to the seized articles. 6. Further, there was nothing brought on record to show as to under whose directions the samples were sent for chemical examination. The High Court relied on Section 55 of the Act to hold that the absence of such information also vitiates the proceedings. 6. Further, there was nothing brought on record to show as to under whose directions the samples were sent for chemical examination. The High Court relied on Section 55 of the Act to hold that the absence of such information also vitiates the proceedings. Section 55 of the Act provides that the officer in charge of the police station has to take charge of and keep in safe custody the seized articles pending orders of the Magistrate. Since there is no material to show that there was any order of the Magistrate as to where the seized articles were to be kept, and there was no material to show that there was safe custody as is required under Section 55 of the Act, the view of the High Court is in order. Judgment of the High Court does not warrant any interference in our hands and the appeal is dismissed. (2003) 12 SCC 339 V.N. KHARE, C.J. AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ EASTERN COALFIELDS Appellant; Versus JOSCON -Respondent. Civil Appeal No. 13386 of 1996 Decided on July 31, 2003 Case Referred 1. (2003) 6 see 595: (2003) 3 Scale 611 , Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani ORDER 1.None appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. The appellant is a public sector undertaking incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It appears that the appellant herein issued several work orders to the respondent herein for construction of 32 units NHS (D/S) quarters at Rajpura Colliery, Kapasara, Bihar (now in the State of Jharkhand). As a result thereof, an agreement was executed between the appellant and the respondent. It appears that certain disputes arose as regards the payment for the work done by the respondent. Under such circumstances, the respondent by letter dated 1-6-1990 sought reference of dispute to the arbitrator. On 5-91990, the Chief Engineer rejected the request of the respondent for arbitration. Thereafter, the respondent in September 1990 filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). A learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court appointed an advocate as an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the appellant and the respondent. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a letters patent appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. 3. A learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court appointed an advocate as an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the appellant and the respondent. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a letters patent appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. 3. The appeal court disposed of the appeal stating that: "It is submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent that he does not oppose the prayer of the appellant in appointing named arbitrator in the agreement i.e. the Chairman and/or Managing Director of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. It appears that by order dated 1-10-1993 the learned trial Judge appointed Mr Shyam Sunder Dutt, Advocate as arbitrator. In view of the submissions made by the respondent who was the petitioner before the trial court, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 1-10-1993 is set aside and the Chairmanl Managing Director of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is directed to nominate an arbitrator to hear the disputes between the parties. The Chairman will nominate an arbitrator within two weeks from the date of service within 4 weeks from his date of appointment and will make and publish his award within 4 months from the date of entering upon reference." 4. Aggrieved the appellant is in appeal before us. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that in fact the petition filed by the respondent under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was barred by limitation. Learned counsel urged that under Article 137 of the Limitation Act the petition under Section 20 could be filed within three years from the date when the cause of action arose. In this case we find that finally the Chief Engineer rejected the request of the respondent to refer the matter to arbitration by letter dated 5-9-1990 and the petition was filed in September 1993 which was well within the period of limitation. We, therefore, reject this argument. 6. Learned counsel then urged that the appellant at no point of time gave any statement before the Court that instead of an advocate arbitrator the Managing Director be directed to appoint the arbitrator and in fact there was no dispute which could have been referred by the Managing Director to the arbitrator. We do not find any merit in this contention. 7. We do not find any merit in this contention. 7. The tenor of the order of the appeal court as set out hereinbefore is indicative of the fact that the only objection which was raised before it by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the learned Single Judge was not correct in appointing an advocate as an arbitrator in view of the fact that in terms of the arbitration agreement it is for the Managing Director of the company to nominate an arbitrator. As the respondent agreed to the nomination of an arbitrator by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the a appellant Company, the Division Bench of the High Court passed the aforementioned order. 8. Mr Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would urge .that from the memo of appeal filed before the High Court, it would appear that not only the question of nomination but also the grounds to the effect that the application under Section 20 of the Act was barred by the limitation and furthermore, the respondent having accepted the payments under the final bill was estopped from raising a claim; were also taken. It is well known that in view of several decisions of this Court, this Court would look to only the judgment of the High Court (see Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani1). A party to a lis may raise several contentions in the petition on the grounds of appeal but would confine his argument only to one question. In the event, some other questions had been raised before the High Court which had not been dealt with by it, it is open to the party to file an application for review. In the instant case, the appeal was disposed of at an interlocutory stage by treating the appeal on days list. It is, therefore, inconceivable that the learned Judges would not notice the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 9. If the appellant was aggrieved against the statement of fact contained in the judgment, it was open to him to file a review before the High Court which he did not propose to do. Under such circumstances, we are not disposed to entertain this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Under such circumstances, we are not disposed to entertain this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.