' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- F.I.R. No,1 of 2008 was recorded at Excise Police Station, Kashmore on 7-6-2008. Complainant was Muhammad Amin, Excise Inspector, Kashmore Circle. He stated that on receiving spy information he along with five other Excise personnel proceeded to Check Post Dakhan Bungalow where they saw a truck coming from Kashmore side. It was signalled to stop.
There was only one person, the present appellant was in the truck and was driving it. He was got down and after his personal search, in which no incriminating material. Was recovered, truck was searched. The truck was loaded with marble stones and the search led to recovery of 160 packets of Charas from secret drawer which when weighed was found to be of 200 Kgs., from which 5 Kgs.
Was sealed separately for chemical analysis and remaining Charas was sealed separately.
2. At the trial complainant Muhammad Amin appeared as P.W.1 and mashir of recovery, Abdul Latif appeared as P.W.
2. After recording statement under section 342, Cr.P.C, in which the present appellant denied the allegations and stated that he was not driver of the Truck and Charas has been foisted upon him.
Vide order dated 24-12-2009 he was convicted under section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs,500,000 and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 6 months. No observation in respect of grant of benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was made in the judgment. This judgment had been challedged in the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. In the F.I.R. The shape of chars (whether rod, slabs or pieces or patties) was not stated. He further submitted that weight of each packet was also not stated in the F.I.R. Learned counsel next submitted that only 5 Kgs. Was sent for chemical analysis and at best prosecution what has been proved against the appellant recovery of 5 Kgs. And nothing more. He further submitted that nowhere in the statements the shape and size of the sample has been stated.
4. Learned State Counsel supported the order of the trial Court and submitted that the prosecution has beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt proved the evidence alleged against the present appellant.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. In the F.I.R. Regarding the recovery it has been stated as under:-- "on further search recovered 160 packets of charas from secret drawers, was weighed in presence of mashirs, which became 200 Kgs. From which 5 kilograms was sealed separately for chemical analysis, the remaining charas and Truck have been brought at Office."
6. P.W. 1 the complainant in his evidence regarding recovery, it was stated as under:-- "There were cavities and cabin made in the Truck in which there was charas in plastic bags. I counted there were 160 slabs of Charas. Weight of each slab was 1200 grams. Total weight of the charas became 200 kilograms."
7. Regarding taking of sample, it was stated as under:-- "I took 5 kilograms as a sample by taking some quantity from each slab."
8. In cross-examination regarding weight and sample, it was stated as under:-- "I had used weight/intrument of 1 K.g in the scale. Charas was weighed within half an' hour. I had separated sample from each slab for chemical analysis."
9. In the report of Chemical Examiner regarding the sample received, it was stated as under:-- "Packet No,1.2 & 3. Each containing one brown coloured slab.
' Packet No,4. Contains two (2) black brown coloured slabs, each wrapped in plastic panne.
' Packet No,5. Contains multiple black brown coloured rods, each wrapped in plastic panne."
10. Mashir Abdul Latif in his evidence regarding recovery and sampling stated as under:-- "After unloading the truck from the cavities charas in 160 slabs were recovered. Excise Inspector made me mashir, co-mashir was EC Bashir Ahmed. Charas was weighed it became 200 kilograms.
From each slab sample was taken. Total sample was 5 kilograms."
11. A perusal of the above indicates that as far as, sample is concerned the F.I.R. Stated that from the enquire quantity 5 Kgs. Was sealed separately. It is pointed out that it is only sealing of 5 Kgs.
Which is stated in the F.I.R. P.W.I, regarding sampling stated that he took 5 Kgs. As sample by taking some quantity from each slab. Since there were 160 packets there must have been 160 pieces taken for chemical examination. Same is stated by P.W.2 when he stated that from each slab sample was taken and total sample was 500 Kgs. However Chemical Analyst states that 5 separate packets were delivered for chemical examination, three packets contained one slab each one packet contained two black and brown slabs each wrapped in plastic panne and 5th packets contained multiple black brown coloured rods, each wrapped in plastic panne. We may observe here that neither in the F.I.R. Nor in the evidence of P.W.1 or P.W.2 any panne have been mentioned. If sample was taken from 160 packets separately how could there be three slabs in three packets and one packet containing two slabs. This creates first doubt around the story of the prosecution.
12. Regarding recovery F.I.R. States that 160 packets were recovered and from measure were found to be 200 Kgs. P.W.1 stated that 160 slabs were recovered, F.I.R. Does not talk of first slab it talks only a packet and P.W.1 does not talk of packets he talks of slabs, it goes on to say that each slab weighed 200 Kgs, if each slab weighed 200 Kgs. How could the entire 200 Kgs. B and not 192 Kgs.
This creates second doubt. Regarding weighing process. In his cross-examination P.W.1 stated that he used weight of 1 Kg in the scale to weigh the Charas. Weight of each packet is stated as 1200 grams how could 1200 grams weighed when the weight available for weighing was 1 Kg. This creates third doubt.
13. The law does not need any authority that benefit of any doubt and every doubt must be given to the person standing trial.
14. In view of the above discussion this appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment dated 24-12- 2009 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. He is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.