ABDULLAH BALOCH, J.---This judgment disposes of Criminal Appe al No.368/2018 filed by the appellant Abdul Ahad son of Akhtar Muhammad, against the judgment dated 27th November , 2018, (hereinafter referred as, "the impugned judgment ") passed by learned Special Judge. CNS Quetta (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court "), whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred as, "the CNS Act 1997 ") and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200,000/- (Two Hundred Thousand) or in default thereof to further suffer S.1. for one (01) year, with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr . P. C.
2. Facts of the case are that on 7th July 2017 the complainant Muhammad Naseem, SI/ANF , lodged FIR No.31/2017 at Police Station RD ANF Balochsitan Quetta, under section 9(c) of C.N.S. Act, 1997, with the averments that on above date RD ANF Officials received special information that huge quantity of narcotics is being smuggled from Chaman-Quetta Road. On this information, he along with ANF officers/of ficials reached at Jalogir Moor and at about 03:30 a.m. a Hondai Car bearing registration No. PL-1921 was found coming from Yaro- Chaman Road, which was signaled to stop, but instead the driver accelerated the speed of the vehicle, hence through official vehicles the said vehicle was compelled to stop, in which a person was found sitting, who on query disclosed his name as Abdul Ahad. The search of vehicle was resulted into recovery of 200 slabs Hashish from boot of the Car, each slab was weighing 500-grams, total weighing 100-Kgs. Hence, from the each slab 100-grams was separated for analysis total weighin g 20-Kgs and the same was sealed in parcel No.1, while the remaining narcotics were sealed in parcel Nos.2. to 5.
3. On completion of investigation, challa n was submitted in the trial Court, which indicated the charge to the appellant, who denied the same and during trial the prosecution examined four witnesses, whereafter the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant also recorded his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., but has not produced any witness in his defence. On conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above in Para No 1. Whereafter , the instant appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for appellant mainly agitated the case of appellant on the stren gth of judgment titled "The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others" (2018 SCMR 2039 ) and mainly contended that the prosecution has failed to comply with the Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts)
Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred as, "the Analysts Rules 2001 ") and no full protocol was given during the course of applying the test, as such, the report is inconclusive and unreliable, thus cann ot be made basis for awarding conviction to the appellant. It has further been contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of contraband to the FSL; that the prosecution has failed to ' establish the ownership of the appellant in respect of vehicle, from which the recovery was effected; that the case of prosecution is doubtful being suffered from legal defects, but the benefit whereof was not extended to the appellant by the trial Court requiring interference of this Court.
5. Learned Serial Prosecutor ANF while supporting the impugned judgment contend ed that the prosecution through concrete, solid and independent evidence has succeeded in establishing the charge against the appellant besides the analysis report was received in affirmative and the appellant has also failed to place on record any or ulterior motives on the part of prosecution witnesses for his false implication, thus rightly the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court; that the FSL report was not disputed or denied by the appellant during the trial, thus the same cannot be assailed at this appellate stage..
6. Heard the learned counsel and perused the available record. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution has produced the evidence of four witnesses, perusal of such statements depicts the fact that absolutely it is a doubtful case being suffered from legal defects. The complainant of the case Muhammad Naseem, SI/RD ANF appeared as PW-1, who mostly reiterated the contents of fard-e-bayan Ex.P/1-A. PW-2 Muhammad Ishfaq, Constable was the member of raiding party as well as recovery witness of the' contraband. PW-3 Muhammad Shabir Constable, ANF, on receipt of complaint recorded the FIR and further confirmed that he handed over the samples of 20-Kgs to Constable Naeem Abbasi, for its analysis from FSL. PW-4 Sahood Farooq, is the Investigating Of ficer of the case, who counted the steps taken by him during the course of investigation.
7. It has further been noted that the learned counsel for appellant has referred the above cited judgment (2018 SCMR 2039 ) by raising objections that the FSL report is inconclusive and unreliable as the prosecution has failed to comply with the Rule 6 of the Analyst Rules 2001, hence while dilating upon such objection; sections 34 to 36 of the C.N.S. Act, 1997 were perused, which provide for Narcotics Testing Laboratories, the Test Reports of the Government Analyst and their evidentiary value. 'Section 36 mandates that the Government Analyst after carrying out tests and analysis of sample of any narcotic drug or psychotropic or controlled substance shall deliver the report prescribed under the Rules. The report under section 36(2) enjoys the benefit of being admissible as evidence of the facts stated herein without formal proof and such evidence unless rebutted, is conclusive. Credible testing and analysis of the alleged drug is fundamental to actualizing the provisions of the Act as it determines the true nature of the recovered substance or the seized drug- Section 36(2) underlines the importance of such test Report. Report of the Government Analyst, is therefore, pivotal in realizing the objective and purpose of the Act.
8. While Rule 6 stands on a different' statutory footing, which provides that the report of the Government Analyst, after the test and analysis, is to furnish the result together with full protocol of the test applied. The accuracy of test and analysis and the correct application of the full protocols alone can determine if the recovered substance is a narcotic drug or a psychotropic or controlled substance and non-compliance of such rule the report of Chemical Analyst in a case would lose its evidentiary value being inconclusive and unreliable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above referred judgment of Imam Bakhsh and others (supra) has held as under: "16. Non-compliance of Rule 6 can frustrate the purpose and object of the Act, i:e. control of production, processing and trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as conviction cannot be sustained on a Report that is inconclusive or unreliable. The eviden tiary assumption attached to a Report of the Government Analyst under section 36(2) of the Act underlines the statutory significance of the Report, therefore details of the test and analysis in the shape of the protocols applied for the test become fundamental and go to the root of the statutory scheme.
Yule 6 is, therefore, in the public interest and safeguards the rights of the parties . Ally Report (Form-II) failing to give details of the full protocols of the test applied will be inconclusive, unreliable, suspicious and untrustworthy and will not meet the evidentiary assumption attached to a Report of the Government Analyst under section 36(2).
Resultantly , it will hopelessly fail to support conviction of the accused. This Court has already emphasized the importance of protocols in Ikramullah's case (supra).
17. Rule 6 also requires the issuance of quadruplicate copies of the Report and the requirement of two signatures on the Report of the Government Analyst in Form-II. Section 36 states that the Report shall be signed by the Government Analyst only. therefore the requirement of two signatures and the issuance of quadruplicate copies, are at best, a good practice, but are merely directory provisions,. as their noncompliance does not offend the Act.
At this stage it is important to point out that this Court, in a series of judgments, has considered the scope of Rule 4(2) of the Rules, which provides that the samples be dispatched to the Government Analyst not later than 72 hours of its seizure and has held it to be a directory provision. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Sarfraz v. State (2017 SCMR 1874 ), Gul Alam v. The State (2011 SCMR 624) and Tariq Mehmood v. The State (PLD 2009 SC 39).
In Taimoor Khan v. State (2016 SCMR 621) this Court has additionally held that Rules 3, 4 and 6 are mandatory .
Deeper examination of this judgment reveals that reference was only being made to Rule 4(1), whereas, Rule 4(2) was not discussed, separately . This understanding falls in line with the consistent view of this Court regarding Rule 4(2) as referred to above.
18. It is important to underline that even if a rule is directory , its substantial compliance as opposed to strict compliance is required. Non-compliance of such a rule might not invalidate the act but as it provides a legislative process based on public interest, transparency and good governance, its substantial compliance is necessary .
Directions to the Federal and Provincial Governments
19. Efficient, credible and proficient Narco tics Testing Laboratories are integral for successful execution of the Act and the Rules. The said laboratories have to be manned by competent analysts having prescribed qualifications.
Rule 3 provides for the qualifications of a Government Analyst and it has alread y been held to be a mandatory provision by this Court. Further , the obligations of the Government Analysts under these Rules must be complied with for ensuring accurate and meaningful chemical analysis. In order to standardize the Narcotics Testing Laboratories across the country , the protocols and tests applied by these laboratories must meet common international standards, e.g. Guidelines issued by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) or Scientific Working Group for the Analys is of Seized Drugs (SWGDRUG) or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) - 17025:2017. We, therefore, direct the Federal Government and the respective Provincial Governments to ensure that the Governm ent Analysts in the Narcotics Testing Laboratories are qualified as per Rule 3, the tests and their protocols are common across the country are as per International guidelines. The officials of the National and Provincial Narcotics Testing Laboratories shall follow the Rules in the best manner possible so that efficient and meaningful chemical analysis can be achieved. In case of failure, disciplinary action be taken against the officials, in accordance with law .
20. We conclude that Rule 5 of the Rules is directory while Rule 6 is mandatory to the extent that the full protocols ought to be mentioned in the Report of the Government Analyst. Non-complianc e of Rule 6, in this context, will render the Report of the Government Analyst inconclusive and unreliable. The representative samples of the alleged drug must be in safe custody and undergo safe transmission from the stage of recovery till it is received at the Narcotics T esting Laboratory ." [BOLD ADDED]
9. So far as the objection raised by the learned counsel for appellant with regard to save custody and safe transmission of the narcotics to FSL is concerned, suffice to observe here that the prosecution has neither cited the name of the actual person in the list of witnesses, who had taken the narcotics to FSL nor he was produced in A the trial Court for recording his statement, which creates doubt with regard to the safe custody and safe transmission of the contraband to the FSL, as such, the safe custody and safe transmission of the contraband was not proved.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment dated 29th October 2018 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.579 of 2017, titled as Siraj-ud-Din v. The State . For facilitation the relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: "According to the prosecution different types of narcotic substances had been recovered in this case which were contained in different packets stored in different sacks. The recovery witness namely Sepoy Zain-ul-Haq (PW2) and the investigating officer namely Inaya t Ullah Sheikh (PW-3) had stated before the trial court in so many words that they did not know how many packets were contained in every sack recovered in this case. The sacks allegedly recovered in this case were opened before the trial court during the trial and the trial court had found that the said sacks were not sealed. Safe custody of the recovered substances had not been proved in this case inasmuch as according, to the prosecution the recovered substances were kept for safe custody in a warehouse but nobody from the said warehouse had been produced before the trial court in order to vouch for safe custody of the recovered substances. Even safe transmission of the samples of the recovered substances had not been proved in this case. According to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory the samples had been brought to the Forensic Science Laboratory by one Sagheer Ahmed but no person by the name of Sagheer Ahmed had been produced before the trial court so as to confirm that the samples had remained in his custody quite safe while transmitting the said samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory . As if this were not enough the protocols of the tests applied on the samples of the recovered substances had not been mentioned in the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory brought on the record of the trial court."
10. It has further been observed that the entire recovery of the contraband was effected from the vehicle/Car Hundai bearing registration No.PL-1921. According to the PW-1 at the time of intercepting, the appellant owned the vehicle and stated that the said vehicle has still not been transferred in his name. However , whilst recording his oath statement, the appellant disowned the said vehicle. Be that as it may, the prosecution ought of have conducted investigation with regard to ownership of the vehicle, but this has not been .done so and the entire case is silent with regard to the same. The registration documents of the same were also not taken into possession.
Hence, in absence of any sort of eviden ce, the appellant cannot be held responsible for the recovery of alleged contraband from the vehicle, ownership whereof is disputed.
11. It has further been observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the apex judicia l forum of the State and it had to interpret the law while hearing appeals from judgments of the High Court and the subordinate judiciary , hence Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan are binding on all Courts of Pakistan and the subordinate Courts are required to give utmost respect, regard and consideration to the judgment, in which the principle of law was enunciated. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under constitutional provisions was not just to decide the question of law, but the same also extended to enunciate the principles of law, which decisions and principles of law were binding on all organs of the State. Admittedly , all the principles, guidelines and strategies enunciated by the Hon'ble apex Court are binding upon all the subordinate Courts. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Ashiq Hussain alias Muhammad Ashraf v. The State , PLD 1994 S.C. 879 , which speaks as under: "By this judgment we intend to strike a note of warning. to the subordinate Courts in the country that they are legally bound to follow the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court and if they do not follow it then serious view of the matter can be taken again the delinquent as and when the misconduct comes or is brought to the notice of this Court."
12. It is well settled proposition of law that when a specific procedure is provided for a doing an act in a specified procedure, thus such act is required to be done in that manner , deviation from such C procure would amount to violating the law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Muhammad Yousaf v. The State , 2017 MLD 1471 (Balochsitan), which provides that, "The burden on prosecution to prove its case cannot be shifted to the accused in artificial manner when the law contemplates and provides a procedure for doing any act. When such procedure is not complied with, it amounts to violate the law ."
13. The discrepancies so pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be taken lightly . It is a well settled principle of law that an accused is entitled to get the benefit of a slightest doubt, whereas in the instant case certain discrepancies and doubts are apparent on the face of record, but the trial Court while delivering the impugned judgment has failed to extend the benefits of such doubts in favour of the appellants.
For the above reasons, the appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment dated 27th November 2018 passed by learned Special Judge, CNS Quetta is set aside and the appellant Abdul Ahad son of Akhtar Muhammad, is acquitted of the charge under section 9(c) of the C.N.S. Act, 1997. in case FIR No.31/2017 of Police Station RD/ANF Balochistan Quetta. The appellant being in custody , is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.