' RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, J.---The appellant Pervaiz alias Gidari son of Abdul Razzak was convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge Shaikarpur under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to suffer R.I. For 10 years and to pay fine of Rs,200,000 and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo S.I. For six months more, by the judgment dated 1-8- 2011.
2. The relevant facts of the prosecution case are that on 17-5-2011 the police party headed by the complainant SIP/SHO Ali Anwar left Police Station Lakhi vide Daily Diary Entry No,8 at 1000 hours for patrolling in the area. After visiting different places when they reached at. "Bridge Begari" where they received spy information that one notorious criminal Pervaiz alias Gidari involved in number of cases at Police Station Shuart Ganj was going to Mari having charas. Complainant on the basis of such information held "nakabandi", after sometime the police saw a person having a black shopper in his hand, who on seeing police party tried to escape away but was encircled and apprehended, on inquiry and personal search, he disclosed his name to be Pervaiz alias Gidari. The police recovered charas in a black shopper weighed to be 1200 grams in presence of police mashirs. The appellant was brought at Police Station where F.I.R. Was lodged, stated hereinabove.
3. That trial Court framed the charge against appellant under sections 6 and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances, Act 1997, on 15-6-2011.The appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of the case, prosecution examined P.W.1 HC Hussain Bux as Exh. 5, he produced the memo of arrest and recovery as Exh.6, being a police party member and mashir of the case, P.W.2 Inspector Sanaullah as Exh.7, he produced the report of Chemical Analyzer as Exh.9; P.W.3 Complainant SIP/SHO Ali Anwar as Exh.10, he produced F.I.R. As Exh.11, photocopy of Entry No,8 duly attested by the I.O. As Exh.12, P.W.4 HC Mukhtiar Ahmed as Exh.13 being a mashir of the place of incident, whereafter, prosecution closed its side by statement as Exh.14.
4. Statement of appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded by the trial Court wherein he denied the prosecution evidence. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove.
5. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is material contradiction in the evidence of P. Ws. Delay in sending the samples for about six days, no private person has been, associated in the whole proceedings during course of investigation, though the alleged incident was of daylight and admittedly the place of incident is a busy road, one cannot say that whether the alleged samples for about six days were kept in safe custody or not.
6. Conversely the learned State counsel has opposed the arguments delivered by learned counsel for the appellant, in rebuttal he contended that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and if there is any minor contradiction on the part of prosecution, it does not carry any weight in the eyes of law. Lastly he prayed for maintainability of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court.
7. We have minutely considered the respective arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel. Examined the record and found as under:-- ' Evidence of the prosecution witnesses is contradictory and discrepant one.
Contradictions ' P. W . Hussain Bux: SHO/Complainant captured the accused first. Accused was tied with kerchief.
We have measurement weights of 1 kilogram and 200 grams. The charas was in the shape of two pieces, one was small and other large. SH0 did not send any police official to bring private persons from nearby houses. Police picket is situated at the bridge of Mari Road (place of incident).
P.W. SHO Ali Anwar:HC Hussain Bux captured the accused first. Accused was tied in handcuffs. I used two weights of 500 grams and weight of 100 grams. The shopper was secured and found two pieces of charas. House of people of different communities situated near "Beghari Bridge" (place of incident). I did not join private person as a mashir from that houses. A police picket is also situated as "Begari Bridge", where police remains round the clock.
DISCREPANCIES
(i) Dispatch of sample to the Chemical Analyzer is delayed by about 6 days. In this regard rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 provides that samples may be dispatched for analysis, not later than 72 hours of the seizure. Though it is not mandatory but for the safe side the samples should be dispatched as early as possible unless the reasons to be recorded.
' In the present case, the person like as WHC or to whom the sample was given in possession for 6 days; ought to have been brought in order to get his evidence recorded by the prosecution to show whether the sample was in safe custody or not. That has not been accounted for.
(ii) The main and crucial point of the case is that during course of evidence the sealed parcel was not desealed before any prosecution witness and without seeing the actual condition of property viz. Parcel marked as article "A", all the P.Ws. Recognized the same being charas, as said to have been recovered from the possession of appellant. It is relevant to mention here, the property was produced in court after chemical examination by the Chemical Analyzer and presumption could be drawn that the seals thereon were of Chemical Examiner's office but even though the P.Ws. Have deposed that it bears their seals and signatures.
' It is well-settled law that the rule with regard to corroboration of evidence of an interested witness is although a rule of caution, yet virtually it is ripened into rule of law. For the purpose of benefit of doubt to an accused more than one infirmity is not required. A single infirmity creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent mind regarding the truth of the charge is sufficient to give the benefit of doubt to the accused. Merely because the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence it does not absolve the prosecution from its duty to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that the investigation was conducted dishonestly, and it has rendered the entire prosecution case doubtful. Consequently, the appellant is extended benefit of doubt and he is acquitted accordingly.
' By our short order dated 19-7-2012 we allowed the present appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and above are the detailed reasons for the same.