Chemical examination

Report of Chemical Examiner Forensic Science Laboratory revealed that two tests were performed by the Forensic Science Laboratory, i.e., Fast Blue B Salt Test and Thin Layer Chromatograph ("TLC") Test

Forensic Science Laboratory had albeit rightly considered the Fast Blue B Salt Test as presumptive test, but had wrongly construed the TLC as a confirmative test, which was in contravention of UNODC guidelines and recommendations

Supreme Court had strictly directed the Federal Government and the respective Provincial Governments to ensure that the Government Analysts in the Narcotics Testing Laboratories were qualified as per R.3 of the Rules of 2001, who shall follow the protocols of tests as per international guidelines and in case of failure, disciplinary action be taken against the said officials

Admittedly, not only Fast Blue B Salt was a presumptive test, but the TLC was also presumptive test, but Forensic Science Laboratory had wrongly considered it as a confirmatory test, which was in utter violation of the UNODC Manual and the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court, thus no conviction could be recorded, while relying upon such Forensic Science Laboratory Report

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Sub item (i) of Item No.2 of Form-II of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2007, clearly manifested that after conducting narcotics test, the Analyst and Authorized Officer must make a statement that while preparing the results of the test and analysis of the suspected material (narcotics), the required protocols had been observed and they may be prosecuted under the law for intentionally making a false statement to the Court, which showed the importance of compliance of the protocols

In the present case and in most of the Forensic Laboratory Reports, declaration as contemplated in Form-II were not provided, which was obligatory upon the signatories of Form-II

Although, such statement was directory and not mandatory, having no penal consequences, but even then, while considering the evidence on record with the Forensic Laboratory Report, its non-adherence might in appropriate cases have an effective impact and bearing on the merits of the case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Charas weighing 15,000 grams was recovered from accused, who was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for life

Validity

In Forensic Science Laboratory report criteria laid down in R. 6 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, was complied with and guidelines given by the Supreme Court were also followed

Non-mentioning of detail of protocol in FSL report was without merit as during trial no objection in such regard was taken

Provision of S. 510, Cr.P.C., could have been invoked by accused in such context but no effort was made

Compliance of S. 21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was not mandatory rather directory and omission in such regard could entail disciplinary proceedings or penal action against delinquent officer but did not affect admissibility of recovered substance

Trial Court correctly appreciated prosecution evidence and no illegality or irregularity was found which could cause any dent in prosecution case

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused, as prosecution evidence was consistent and not shaken despite lengthy cross-examination

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Police had transmitted seven parcels of contraband, out of which six parcels contained forty packets, while one parcel contained thirty five packets and each packet in the parcels weighed 1-kg

Samples were not drawn from each packet

Non-drawing of samples from each packet separately for chemical analysis clearly indicated the negligence of the Chemical Examiner, which was not in any manner advantageous for the prosecution case.

Charas in three packets was allegedly recovered from possession of accused but only a "small" and unspecified quantity was taken from every packet as a sample and were mixed up and made into one sample of 20 grams which was sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis

As to from which packet the substance was taken for analysis could not be ascertained

Such circumstances cast serious doubt about the veracity of prosecution case, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused

Appeal was allowed and conviction and sentences recorded by trial court against accused were set-aside in circumstances.

Charas in 80 cakes/slabs contained in 20 packets kept in 22 baskets was allegedly recovered from possession of accused but only a "small" and unspecific quantity was taken from every packet as a sample and then those samples were mixed up and made into one sample of 10 grams which was thereafter sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis

Trial Court convicted the accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life which was maintained by High Court

Validity

If 80 cakes/slabs had statedly been recovered from possession of accused and total weight of entire quantity was 20 kilograms then, each cake/slab weighed about 250 grams

As only one sample of 10 grams had been sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis and report in that regard had been received in positive, therefore, for safe administration of justice, it could be concluded that accused was liable to be held responsible for having only one cake/slab of Charas weighing 250 grams in his possession which offence attracted provisions of S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Supreme Court converted conviction of accused under S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced him to imprisonment for one year and three months with a fine of Rs.9000

Appeal was allowed accordingly.