The arrest of the accused (Appellant) against Section 9 (C) and 35 addicts was against him after he was arrested and recovered 340kg of hashish from the trunk of his car, which was present in Seventeen. (17) The bag, each weighing one kilogram containing twenty (20) packets, was convicted by the trial court under Section 9 (c) of the Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The conviction of the accused was that there was a delay in sending the samples, so it cannot be ruled out that the samples were tampered with. Under Section 35 of the Narcotic Material Stances Control Act 1997, the Chemical Examiner was not a reported analyst, therefore, its report had to be excluded. The evidence of the torture witnesses was contradicted because one of them stated that 10 grams of marijuana was separated from each packet, while the other witness stated that 10 grams from each bag. The marijuana sample has been extracted. No more packets. The accused had presented a police officer in his defense, according to which the accused was arrested on the day of the incident and charged with another crime and was released at 7.30 pm the same day, while the prosecution case. It was that the accused was arrested at 30 pm for the present case, and that the samples were not taken from all the recovered packets but only from 17 (17) packets, weighing 170 grams, hence, the accused's case. Falls under the purview of Section 9 (b). ) To be valid of the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act, 1997, the provincial government notified the Chemical Examiner through a notification since the proceedings before the trial court (Special Judge Narcotics) were carried out under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898;
