1989 PLP 2796 (MLD)

S. 156(1)(8)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.510--Provisions of S.510, Cr.P.C. are self-explanatory--Chemical Examiner's report, admissibility of- Report of Chemical Examiner is admissible in evidence without calling Chemical Examiner as a witness--Such report is a piece of evidence which does not require any formal proof. Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Appellant. Jalaluddin Baloch for the State. Date of hearing: 17th January, 1989. Appellant Abiodun Akanbi, a Nigerian national was tried by the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi, for attempting to smuggle 1700 grams of heroin powder out of Pakistan, an offence punishable under clause (8) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, and was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.85,000 or in default to suffer R.I. for six months. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence recorded on 30-7-1988, by filing this appeal. 2. On 2-7-1987, Khalid Hassan, Preventive Officer, Customs was on duty at International Departure Hall, Terminal II, Karachi Airport, when at about 4-30 p.m., he suspected the present appellant, who was leaving for Nairobi by flight No. PK-745. He, therefore, examined the suit-case of the appellant and found heroin powder lying concealed, which was seized n presence of Mashirs Abdul Ghafoor and Michel Daniel. The samples of heroin powder were then taken in presence of same Mashirs. The travel documents of the appellant were also secured and he was served with a notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969. The sample was then sent to Chemical Examiner for examination and report. After completing the investigation the appellant was sent up in the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, to stand trial for the aforesaid offence, where he was tried and convicted. 3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jalaluddin Baloch, learned counsel represent the State. 4. There is satisfactory evidence on record connecting the appellant with this crime. He was apprehended by Khalid Hassan, Preventive Officer, Customs, while he was leaving Pakistan, who secured 1700 grams of heroin powder which was lying concealed in the bottom of the suit case which he was carrying. Khalid Hassan (P.W.1) has fully implicated the appellant. There is nothing m his cross examination, which could show that he had any reason to implicate the appellant falsely. The version of Khalid Hassan (P.W.1) gets full support from Michel Daniel (P.W.2), who is completely an independent person. According to his testimony the heroin powder was lying concealed in the bottom of suit-case carried by the appellant and the same was recovered in his presence under a memo. which is on record (Exh.3/A). The appellant met the charge by a simple denial. He did not examine himself on oath. There is also no evidence in defence. There is, therefore, no reason to suspect the evidence of the above witnesses which is consistent and is not shaken in cross-examination. 5. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.6/A) by stating that the same being doubtful, no reliance can be placed upon it in arriving to a conclusion that the powder secured from the possession of the appellant was heroin powder. He has, in particular, criticised the delay in sending the powder for examination to Chemical Examiner. Reliance is placed upon the cases reported as Muhammad Yasin v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 1931, Khalid Sultan v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 241, Mst. Sultan Zari v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 1723 and Imran Hussain Shah v. The State P L D 1987 FSC 6. Various tests have been laid down in various rulings of the superior Courts, but it is a universally accepted principle that every ruling in a criminal case governs its own facts. The observations made in a criminal case are products of peculiar circumstances of the case in which they are made. A report of Chemical Examiner is admissible without calling him as witness. It is a piece of evidence that does not require any formal proof. Section 510, Cr.P.C. is C self-explanatory. The prosecution has, however, examined Muhammad Iqbal Malik, Assistant Chemical Examiner (P.W.4) in this case, who had examined the powder by means of colour test and thin layer cromoto-graph test and finally carne to the conclusion that it was heroin powder of commercial grade. A suggestion was made to this expert witness in cross-examination to the effect that he had received the powder unsealed, which suggestion was denied by him. The delay in despatching the disputed sample to Chemical Examiner or delay in examining the sample by the Chemical Examiner is not by itself sufficient to suspect the words of expert witness. This factor is relevant only when there are other circumstances on record making the case of the prosecution as doubtful. I am, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution was able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. 6. The question of sentence has engaged my anxious consideration. There is alarming increase of such cases. A lenient view has already been taken against the appellant, who has also been allowed the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. in computing the sentence. The sentence awarded to the, appellant is, therefore, maintained. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Karachi be informed accordingly. N.H.Q./A-543/K Order accordingly.