' SH. ABDUR RASHID, J.-Muhammad Yasin son of Muhammad Jabbar caste Jat resident of Jhugian Shahab Din, Bund Road, Lahore was tried in case F.I.R. No,342 dated 29-8-1999 under sections 6/9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered with Police Station, Nawankot District Lahore by Syed Ejaz Hussain, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who vide judgment dated 16-9- 2001, convicted the appellant under section 9-C ibid and sentenced him to life imprisonment alongwith benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the appellant has filed this appeal.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case as set up in the F.I.R. Are that the appellant while in custody in case I.I.R. No,341 dated 29-8-1999 under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd)
Order VI, of 1979 of Police Station, Nawankot revealed before Noor Ahmad, A.S.-1. That he was keeping Charas and opium at his house and consequently he led to the recovery of 10 Kgs. Charas and 1-1/2 Kgs. Opium. Out of their contents 10 grams each were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.A. Prepared by Noor Ahmad, A.S.-I. And made into sample sealed parcels which were sent to the office of Chemical Examiner, whose reports confirmed their contents to be that of Charas and opium.
3. Upon completion of the investigations by Noor Ahmad, A.S.-I. The appellant was challaned in this case and he was charged under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was read over to him and explained in the language which he could understand, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution produced Shaukat Hayat Constable P.W.1, Muhammad Mahboob, Moharrir Head Constable, P.W.2, Muhammad Rafique, Head Constable, P.W.3, Munir Ahmad, Head Constable, P.W.4, Noor Ahmad, A.S-I., P.W.5 and Mustafa Hussain, S.-I. P.W.6.
5. The learned D.D.A. Tendered in evidence reports of Chemical Examiners Exh.P.D. And Exh.P.E. And closed the prosecution case.
6. The statement of the appellant/ accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Without oath was recorded and all the 'incriminating evidence was put to him which he repudiated and pleaded that a false case had been made out against him. He did not wish to, produce defence evidence and also did not opt to appear on oath as a witness in disproof of the prosecution evidence.
7. Upon conclusion of the evidence the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved thereby the appellant has filed this appeal.
8. It has been mainly argued by the learned counsel that the entire investigations in this case have been conducted by Noor Muhammad, A.S.-I. Who had allegedly recovered the Narcotic Substances from the appellant and had prepared the recovery memo. Prepared the sealed parcels and had also recorded the statements of the witnesses attesting the recovery memo. In violation of sections 21 and 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and that his said investigations are of no legal consequence and in accordance with the principle laid down in Khalid Nawaz v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ Lahore 2008 and Nasrullah v. The State PLD 2001 Peshawar 152 the appellant's conviction is legally untenable.
9. Admittedly, the entire investigations in this case had been made by Noor Ahmad, A.S.-I. He had recovered narcotic substances, made them into sealed parcels, prepared their samples sealed parcels and also drafted its recovery memos. As well as the complaint and also recorded the statements of the witnesses who attested the recovery memos. The investigations carried out by Noor Ahmad, A.S.-I. Are violative of sections 21, 22 of the Act ibid. 1998, PCr.LJ 2008 stipulates that an officer below the rank of S.-I. Of Police could not seize in any public place and had no authority to search and arrest a person for recovery of narcotics. The proceedings of search, arrest and recovery could not be processed or carried out by an A.S.-I. And recovery memos. Prepared by him carried no legal force and the accused on the basis of investigations carried out an A.S.-I. Could not be convicted.
10. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant had been discussed in more details in Nasrullah v. The State PLD 2001 Peshawar 152 and it had been held therein that any relation to any search, seizure or arrest of an accused in narcotic cases the provisions of B sections 21, 22 and 26 of the Control of Narcotic Subgtances Act. 1997 are mandatory in nature and observance thereof would imperative to the validity of any search seizure and arrest and non- adherence thereof would invalidate the whole action from the inception to the end and further that officers below the rank of S.-I. Of the police were just a non-entity for the purposes of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. We subscribe to the views expressed in both the said authorities and hold that in the present case Noor Ahmad, A.S.-I. Carried out the entire investigations in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and his said investigations which include arrest of the appellant, search of his premises, recovery of narcotics from him and preparation of recovery memos. And preparation of sample sealed parcels to be of no legal consequence, therefore, by accepting this appeal we set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence and acquit him of the charges. He is in jail and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.