1990 PLP 502 (SCMR)

Art. 4

Recovery witness from public, production of

Federal Shariat Court had dealt with the matter with reference to its decision in the case of Shah Nawaz and another v. State P L D 1986 F S C 242 relying on Muhammad Shah v. The State P L D 1984 S C 278 which went against accused

Appeal dismissed.-- [Witness]. Muhammad Farooq v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 778 ref. Shahnawaz's case PLD 1986 FSC 242 rel. Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 19-R(S) of 1987). M. Nawaz Abbasi, A. A: G. Punjab and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate on-Record for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 19-R(S) of 1987). Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 22-R(S) of 1987. M.Nawaz Abbasi, A. A: G. Punjab and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate on-Record for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 22-R(S) of 1987). Date of hearing: 4th July, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--These appeals by leave of this Court are directed against separate judgments of the Federal Shariat Court, whereby the appellants' conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was upheld and whilf^. reducing the sentence in the first case, it was maintained in the second one. One ground on which leave to appeal was granted is common to both the appeals; namely, that the Chemical Examiner's report is too brief to explain the method through which positive conclusions were reached with regard to the Chemical Examination. In this behalf a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court in Muhammad Farooq v. The State 1985 P Cr.L J 778 was also noticed. An additional point noted in the leave grant order (in the second case) was that there was no witness of recovery from the public. We after having heard the learned counsel on the abovenoted points have not been able to find any force in them. Under section 510 of the Criminal Procedure Code it is not necessary for the Chemical Examiner in cases like the present one to give all the details of the procedures and the reasons for his reaching positive or negative opinion about the substance sent to him for analysis. It is only when he is summoned in accordance with the provisions contained in the said section that such like details are ascertained. It is not in every case that the details become relevant. Whenever a party makes an application in this behalf and the Court considers it necessary in the interest of justice to go into the details or to examine any other question connected with the report that the person making the report is summoned and examined m that connection. For example in the criminal cases relating to hurt when a substance is sent to the Chemica, Examiner and he sends his report m the same manner, as has been done in these cases, it is never rejected simply because the report is too short so long as it contains a definite opinion about the query made. In this case the report is definitely positive about the query made. Hence the argument, as advanced, has no force. The reliance by the learned counsel on the case of Muhammad Farooq decided by the Federal Shariat Court is of no help to the appellants. Even if it declared same law the Chemical Examiner's report was found defective not only on account of it being brief but on account of the fact that the proper procedures were not adopted in submitting the report in that case. And what is important is that the Court had examined the details of procedure and other matters through which the Chemical Examiner in that case had reached the conclusion concerned therein. Obviously no material was placed in these cases before the lower Courts so as to build the argument as was accepted in the said case by the Federal Shariat Court. On the second point; namely, that relating to the production of witnesses from the public the Federal Shariat Court has dealt with the matter with reference to its decision in the case of "Shahnawaz P L D 1986 F S C 242" Reliance in that behalf was placed on a decision of this Court in Muhammad C Shah etc. v. The State P L D 1984 Supreme Court

278. We are of the impression that there are other Supreme Court cases also which go against the appellants on this question. On facts also no case has been made out for interference. These appeals, accordingly, are dismissed. MA.K./K-123/S Appeals dismissed.