' MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 15-11-2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III/Judge Special Court, Peshawar, whereby appellant Shujat Ali was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ("Act") and sentenced to imprisonment for life with payment of fine of Rs,100,000 or in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. However, benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to him.
2. Short but relevant facts of the case are that Arshad Khan, Deputy Director Intelligence and Investigation, Peshawar received information that on 27-5-2011, a huge quantity of narcotics would be smuggled from tribal territory to Punjab through Suzuki Jeep No,FDK-6791 via Motorway, Peshawar. Upon this, a raiding party headed by Ali Akbar Superintendent was constituted, who made Nakabandi' at Motorway Toll Plaza, Peshawar, in the meanwhile, the said Suzuki Jeep was emerged on the scene, which was signaled to stop but its driver accelerated the vehicle, which was chased through official vehicle and near Motorway Toll Plaza, the driver, namely, Mazhar parked the vehicle at some distance and decamped from the spot while accused-appellant Shujat Ali was overpowered on the spot. On search of the vehicle, 147 Kgs of charas and 1 Kg opium were recovered from its secret cavities. A little quantity of charas from each packet was obtained, mixed them and from the mixture 3/3 samples each weighing 10/10 grams was separated while 10 grams was also separated from the opium and sealed it into parcels fqr chemical analysis. The remaining charas and opium were sealed into separate parcels. Murasila was drafted and sent the same to the Police Station Customs Investigation and Prosecution Branch, Custom House, Peshawar where on the basis of which the instant FIR was registered against the accused.
3. After completion of investigation, complete challan was put, in. Court against the appellant where copies of the relevant documents as required under Section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Were supplied to him. The charge was accordingly framed against appellant to whom he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove the charge and substantiate the allegations leveled against appellant, produced five (05) witnesses at trial. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., who denied the charges and pleaded innocence. However, he was ready to be examined on oath and does not wish to produce evidence in his defence. On 5-4-2012, his statement was recorded wherein he stated that he does not wish to be examined on oath in view of the provision contained in section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and appraising the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Feeling dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, appellant has come to this Court with instant appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. Admittedly, huge quantity of 147 Kgs charas and 1 Kg opium were recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle. From the recovered stuff, a little quantity of charas from each packet was obtained, mixed them and from the mixture 3/3 samples each weighing 10/10 grams was separated while three samples each weighing 10 grams of opium was also separated but the 1.0.
Had sent one sample of charas and opium each for chemical analysis. Under the law, the prosecution was under obligation to have first weighed every packet and then separated a small quantity from each packet, properly sealed and sent them for chemical analysis. In the instant case, the above said legal requirements have not been complied with, therefore, it cannot be said that the sample sent to the FSL for analysis was a representative sample. The issue in hand was discussed by the apex Court in the case of Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), wherein it was held that:- "It is our considered opinion that sample taken of a recovered substance must be representative sample of the entire substance recovered and if no sample is taken from any particular packet/cake/slab or if different samples taken from the different packet/cake/slab are not kept separately for their separate analysis by Chemical Examiner, then sample would not be a representative sample and it would be unsafe to reply on the mere word of mouth of the prosecution witness regarding the substance of which no sample has been taken or tested being narcotic substance".
' The above said principle was also followed in the case pf. Mst. Nasreen Bibi v. The State (2014 SCM R 1603).
' Keeping in view the dicta laid down by the apex Court, we are of the view that the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law because one sample of 10 grams of amalgamated charas and one sample of 10 grams of opium were sent for chemical analysis, report whereof is received as positive, thus, the appellant was liable to be held responsible for having only 1 Kgs of charas and 1 Kgs of opium.
6. In view of the above, this appeal is partially allowed, the conviction of the appellant under Section 9 (c) of the Act (ibid) is maintained but his sentence is reduced from imprisonment for life to seven (7) years' R.I. While the fine imposed upon him is remained intact. 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.