Farooq Haider , J.--This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 13.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby in case arising out of F.I.R. No.296/201 1 dated 13.04.201 1 registered under Section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Tatlay Aali, District Gujranwala (Ex. P A), the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-- Under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 to two year's R.I with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment: thereof the appellant was directed to further undergo S.I for two months. Benefit of section 382-B Cr .P.C, was also extended to the appellant.
2. Briefly , the accusation levelled in the complaint (Ex.PC) against the appellant, on the basis of which, above mentioned F.I.R. (Ex.P A) was chalked out, is that on 13.04.201 1 at about 06:20 am., Farhat Nawaz S.I/complainant (PW-4) along with other police officials was present for patrolling on an official vehicle at Budha Goraya ; when on the basis of spy information, a raid was conducted in the fields near Adda Harchowki , and Zia Ullah (appellant) was apprehended by the police party while cutting flowers of poppy plants; "Doda " was separated from cultivated "poast ", which became 2 kilograms, out of which, 10 "Dodas" weighing 120 grams were separated for chemical analysis and secured into a sealed parcel of sample while the remaining case property was also sealed into a parcel.
After investigation, challan report was sent to Court against appellant; charge was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty; prosecution produced its evidence. Learned trial Court recorded statement of the appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.C. wherein he refuted allegations leveled against him; Then, learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed the impugned judgment, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned Law Officer and going through the record with their able assistance, it has been observed that Zulfiqar Ali 1374/HC (Moharir ) while appearing as PW-1 before learned trial Court has categorically stated that Muha mmad Nasir S.I. (PW-6) handed over to him two sealed parcels said to contain "Dodas " of the poast for safe custody in the Malkhana and on 19.04.201 1, he handed over one sample sealed parcel of "Dodas " of poast to Muhammad Ali 3308/C for onward transmission to the A office of Chemical Examiner Punjab, Lahore in intact position; relevant portion of his statement is hereby being reproduced:-- "Deposed that on 13.04.201 1. I was posted at police station Tatlay Acili Gujranwala as Muharrir , On the same day Muhammad Nasir S.I handed over to me two sealed parcels said to contain Doday of the Poast for safe custody in the malkhana. On 19.04.201 1 I handed over one sample sealed parcel of Doday of Poast to Muhammad Ali 3308/C for onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner Lahore in intact position."
(emphasis added)
Muhammad Ali 3308/C while appearing as PW -2 has stated as under:-- "Deposed that on 19.04.201 1 I was posted at police Tatlay Aali Gujranwala. On the same day Zulfiqar Ali 1374/HC Muharir handed over to me one sample sealed parcel of Doday of Poast which I deposited in the office of Chemical Examiner Lahore on the same day in intact position."
(emphasis added)
Whereas report of Chemical Examiner Punjab, Lahore i.e. Ex. PE tendered and relied by the prosecution, reveals that sealed sample parcel for chemical analysis in this case was received on 19.04.201 1 by Asif Ali 3060/C and dispatched by E.T.O. Gujranwala on 14.04.201 1. Perusal of aforementioned statements of Zulfiqar Ali 1374/HC (Moharir/PW -1) and of Muhammad Ali 3308/C (PW-2), clearly shows that in this case parcel of sample was handed over on 19.04.201 1 by Zulfiqar Ali 1374/HC (Moharir) to Muhammad Ali 3308/C for onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner Punjab, Lahore and Muhammad Ali 3308/C delivered the same on 19.04.201 1 in the office of Chemical Examiner Punjab, Lahore but report of Chemical Examiner Punjab, Lahore i.e. Ex. PE reveals that sample parcel was not delivered by Muhammad Ali constable rather it shows that Asif Ali 3060/C delivered the same; it is important to mention here that Asif Ali 3060/C has not been produced by the prosecution and even he is not cited witness in this case. Therefore, safe custody of sample parcel from point of its preparation from the date of alleged recovery till its receipt in the of fice of Chemical Examiner Punjab, Lahore, has not been proved.
Furthermore, report of Chemical Examiner Punjab, Lahore i.e. Ex. PE reveals that parcel was dispatched by E.T.O.
Gujranwala, which was received in, the office of Chemical Examiner Punjab, Lahore in this case but learned Law Officer after going through the record could not refer even an jota of material/evid ence to show in this regard that how this parcel of sample reached to the office of E.T.O., how much period it remained there and whether it remained in safe custody , this aspect has impaired and vitiated the conclusiveness and reliability of the report of Chemical Examiner , Punjab Lahore, rendering it incapable for sustaining conviction; in this regard, case of "Muhammad Abbas versus the State" reported in (2006 YLR 2378 ) can be referred advantageously , relev ant portion whereof is being reproduced below:-- "It was only Muhammad Ramzan, FC (PW.4) who had stated before the learned trial Court that on 13.07.1998 he had been handed over two parcels said to contain heroin and Charas by Moharrir Head Constable of the relevant police station for onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner which he delivered there on the same day. The report of the Chemical Examiner (Exhibit-PE), however , shows that the docket of the samples of the recovered substance had been prepared on 06.07.1998 and the said samples had been dispatched by the Excise and Taxation Officer , Sheikhupura and not by the local police. We have required the learned counsel for the State to explain as to how the samples of the recovered substance had come in the hands of the Excise and Taxation Officer , Sheikhupura and what was the evidence available on the record to confirm that the same had been kept in safe custody while in possession, of the Excise and Taxation Officer , Sheikhupura but after going through the record of this case from cover to cover he has categorically conceded that there is no evidence whatsoever available on the record in those respects. In such a state of the evidence availab le on the record safe custody of the recovered substance or its samples is not discernable from the record of this case and, thus, we have found it to be extremely unsafe to uphold and maintain the appellant's convictions and sentences recorded by the learned trial Court."
Therefore, safe custody of parcel of sample has not been proved in this case. Now law is well settled on the point that in narcotics cases, unbroken chain of "safe custody of parcel of sample" is to be proved otherwise, conviction is not possible and it is rightly so because in narcotics cases recovery of narcotics is not mere corroboratory piece of evidence rather it constitutes the offence itself and entails punishment. Guidance in this regard has been sought from the dictum laid down in case of "Abdul Ghani and others versus The State and others " (2019 SCMR 608); relevant portion whereof is being reproduced:-- "There is hardly any occasion for discussing the merits of the case against the appellants because the record of the case shows that safe custody of the recovered substance as well as safe transmission of samples of the recovered substance to the office of the Chemical Examiner had not been established by the prosecution in this case. Nisar Ahmed; S.L/SHO complainant (PW1) had stated before the trial Court that he had deposited the recovered substance at the Malkhana of the local Police Station but admittedly the Moharrir of the said Police Station had not been produced before the trial Court to depose about safe custody of the recovered substance. It is also not denied that Ali Sher, H.C.' who had delivered the samples of the recovered substance at the office of the Chemical Examiner had also not been produced during the trial so as to confirm safe transmission of the samples of the recovered substance. It has already been clarified by this Court in the cases of The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others (2018 SCMR 2039 ), Ikramullah and others v.The State (2015 SCMR 1002 and Amjad Ali v.The State (2012 SCMR 577) that in a case where safe custody of the recovered substance or safe transmission of samples of the recover ed substance is not proved by the prosecution through independent evidence there it cannot be concluded that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its ' case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The case in hand suffers from the same legal defects. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the convictions and sentences of the appellants recorded and upheld by the Courts below are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to them. They shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case."
Law is also now well settled on the point that single dent in case o prosecution is, sufficient for acquittal, in this regard, reliance can be placed upon the cases of "Tariq' Pervez versus The State " (1995 SC 1345), "Muhammad Akram versus The State " (2009 SCMR 230), "Muhammad Zaman versus The State and others " (2014 SCMR 749), "Muhammad Mansha versus The State " (2018 SCMR 772), "Abdul Jabbar and another versus The State " (2019 SCMR 129 ) and "Mst Asia Bibi versus The State and others" ( PLD 2019 SC 64 ).
4. Thus, prosecution has been failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt, hence, there is no need to discuss defence version.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, instant appeal is accepted , conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the appellant through the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2015 passed in case arising out of F.I.R No. 296/201 1 dated 13.04.201 1 registered under Section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Tatlay Aali, District Gujranwala, are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge, he shall be released forthwith not required in any other case.