2020 PLP 1290 (MLD)

SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, J.

Through instant appeal, Muhammad Sajid, appellant has assailed the judgment dated 04.12.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chichawatni in case FIR No.275 dated 13.07.2017, offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station City Chichawatni, District Sahiwal whereby, he was convicted under section 9(c) of the Act ibid and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and six months with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for five months. The appellant was however, awarded the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as per crime report, are that on 13.07.2017 at about 07.15 p.m, on spy information, a raid was conducted, the appellant was apprehended and during his search, 1325 grams 'Charas' was recovered.

3. After investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted. The learned trial court, after observing pre-trial codal formalities, framed the charge against the appellant on 11.10.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned trial Court, after completion of trial, vide its judgment dated 04.12.2017, found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. We have noticed that the Government Analyst of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore while preparing the report (Exh-PD) has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Khair ul Bashar v. The State (2019 SCMR 930) has declared that the requirements of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 are mandatory and if the same have not been complied with, the report of the Government Analysts due in consequence of Rule 6 loses its reliability and evidentiary value. It has also been held that non-compliance of Rule 6 and absence of any of the enumerated mandatory elements/requirements frustrates the purpose and object of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The term "Protocol" as observed in the case of The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others (2018 SCMR 2039), means an explicit, detailed plan of an experiment, procedure or test or a precise step-by-step description of a test, including the listing of all necessary reagents and all criteria and procedures for the evaluation of the test data and "Full protocols" include a description of each and every step employed by the Government Analyst through the course of conducting a test. Hence, the Report under Rule 6 must specify every test applied for the determination of the seized substances with the full protocols adopted to conduct such tests. In the instant case, the report prepared by the Government Analyst, Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh-PD) does not carry separate result of each test applied except a concluding result. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant in such case of narcotics carrying a stringent sentence cannot be convicted and sentenced only on the basis of oral assertions unless it is established with certitude that the material allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant was a narcotic that, in our view, prosecution in this case failed to do. In recent judgments passed in the case of Muhammad Boota v. The State and another (2020 SCMR 196) and Qaisar Javed Khan v. The State and another (PLD 2020 SC 57), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reiterated the same dictum. There remains no cavil about the proposition that if there is a single circumstance which creates reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same is sufficient to give benefit of the same to the accused. For what has been discussed above, Crl. Appeal No.1172 of 2017 is allowed, the conviction and sentence awarded to Muhammad Sajid, appellant by the learned trial court is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him by extending him the benefit of doubt. He is in custody, be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. ADN/M-49/L Appeal allowed.