P L D 2009 Quetta 40 (PLP)

AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J.

As there were two different judgments of this Court with regard to admissibility of Chemical Examiner's report furnished by Forensic Science Laboratory Balochistan, therefore, the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to constitute Full Bench in order to resolve the issue.

2. We have heard learned counsel for appellants as well as learned Special Prosecutor. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended that under section 34 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1997) the Government was required to set up Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory or notify any other Laboratory or Institute as Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory but no such Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory was established nor any Notification with regard to Provincial Forensic Science Laboratory was issued, therefore, any report submitted by the expert of said Laboratory was not admissible. He further argued that the Chemical Examiner/expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory was not notified as government analyst in accordance with the provisions of section 35 of the Act, 1997 therefore, any report submitted by them was not admissible within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 36 of the Act, 1997. On the other hand learned Special Prosecutor vehemently contended that all the Provincial Testing Laboratories have been declared as to be Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratories for the purpose of Act, 1997 and any report submitted by any of the expert appointed in those laboratories was a report of government analyst 'within the meaning of section 35 of the Act, 1997. In this regard he placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2001 PCr.LJ

879. We have carefully considered the contentions put forth by the parties' learned counsel. It may be noted that under section 34 of the Act, 1997 the Federal Government was required as soon as may be after the commencement of the Act, 1997 to` set up a Federal Narcotic Testing Laboratory and such other Institutes and narcotics testing research laboratories or notify any other Laboratory or institute to be a Federal Testing Laboratory for carrying out purpose of the Act, 1997. Thus under the above-reproduced section in addition to setting up a Federal Narcotics testing Laboratory the Federal Government has also been authorized to notify any already set up laboratory or institute to be a Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory and in pursuance of such powers the government has issued S. R.O. No.596(I)/1976, which is reproduced herein below:-- "Notification No.S.R.O.596(I)/97, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 34 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997), the Federal Government is pleased to notify the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Laboratories (PSCIR) Lahore, National Institute of Health Laboratory, Islamabad, Sindh Laboratory of Chemical Analysis Karachi, PCSIR Laboratory, Karachi, PCSIR Laboratory, Peshawar and Central Drug Laboratory, 7th Central Street, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi and all Narcotics Testing Laboratories set up by the Provincial Government to be the Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratories for the purpose of the said Act." It is not disputed that Forensic Science Laboratory is a Narcotics Testing Laboratory set up by the Provincial Government and the Chemical Examiners posted therein have been notified to be Chemical Examiners under section 510, Cr.P.C. therefore, after having been declared to be a Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory for the purpose of Act, 1997 the report of the Chemical Examiner would be a report as contemplated under section 34 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Chemical Examiner and Assistant Chemical Examiner appointed therein shall be considered to be government analyst as envisaged by section 35 of the Act, 1997. In this regard we are in respectful agreement with the observations made in the judgment reported in 2001 PCr.LJ

879. Thus any report submitted by a Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner notified under section 510, Cr.P.C. is a report of Government analyst within the meaning of sections 34 and 35 of the Act, 1997 and admissible in evidence. Additionally by virtue of section 47 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provisions of Cr.P.C. were made applicable to proceedings under the Act except as otherwise provided by the Act itself, therefore, in absence of any express exclusion of section 510, Cr.P.C. the reports of Chemical Examiner and Assistant Examiner notified under the said section of Cr.P.C. were also admissible in the case registered under the provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, otherwise the legislature would have expressly excluded the provisions of section 510 Cr.P.C. as was done in respect of section 103, Cr.P.C. which was excluded by virtue of section 25 of the Act, 1997. Further both the provisions are not in conflict but parallel and affirmative in nature, therefore, it is well-settled rule of interpretation that repeal by implication ought not to be held without strong reason because it is always reasonable presumption that the legislature did not intend to keep really contradictory enactments on the statute book. It has been laid down generally that when the later enactment is worded in affirmative terms only, without any negative expressed or implied, it does not repeal the earlier law (Maxwill on the interpretation of statutes, Tenth Edition by G. Granville Sharp and Brian Galpin referred). The provisions of section 35 of the Act, 1997 have been couched in affirmative words, as such would not affect the provisions of section 510, Cr.P.C. making the reports of duly notified chemical examiner admissible. The question involved in the above cited appeals is answered accordingly and the office is direct to fix these appeals before D.B. for regular hearing. H.B.T./32/Q Order accordingly.