Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J.--This appeal is directed against judgmen t dated 26.03.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tandlianwala, whereby , in case FIR No. 288/2017 dated 18.05.2017, registered at Police Station City Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the learned trial Court convicted Javed Iqbal appellant and sentenced him as under: Under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 to four years and six months RI with fine of Rs.
20,000/- and in default of payment thereof the appellant was directed to further undergo S.I for five months. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr .P.C. was also extended to the appellant.
2. Briefly , the accusation levelled in the FIR against the appellant is that on 18.05.2017, Nosher Ali SI (complainant/PW -1), along with other police officials was present at Sabzi Mondi Chowk. On the basis of spy information, a police barricade was insta lled and after some time, three persons came from the side of railway station, who on seeing the police party started running, out of whom, one person was over-powered by the police party , whose name was disclosed as Javed Iqbal (appellant). On checking, 1070-grams Charas, wrapped in polythene shopper was recovered, which the appellant was holding in his right hand. A separate sample parcel of Charas weighing 55-grams for Chemical Analysis, I was prepared. The appellant was interrogated and challaned to face the trial. The charge was framed against the appellant on 21.6.2017, to which he pleaded not guilty so the prosecution was directed to produce its evidence. The prosecution produced three witnesses to prove its case. The learned 'Additional Sessions Judge, Tandlianwala, after recording the statement of the appellant under section 342 Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments, passed the impugned judgment, whereby , the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned and detailed above.
3. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal contends that full protocols were not mentioned by the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency while preparing the report (Ex.PE); that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, the appellant may be acquitted from the charge while setting aside the impugned judgment.
5. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General has supported the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court by contending that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of any doubt, therefore, the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court; that the appellant cannot be acquitted on the sole ground that full protocols have not been mentioned in the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency; that there is no substance in the present, appeal, therefore, the same may be dismissed.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. It is by now well settled that since the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provide stringent punishments, therefore, their proof has to be construed strictly and the benefit of any doubt in the prosecution case must be extended to the accused. Reference in this respect may be made to the case of "Muhammad Hashim v. The State" (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 856). Dealing with the same proposition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held in the case of "Ameer Zeb v. The State " (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 380) that harder the sentence, stricter the standard of proof. Seeking guidance from the abovementioned judgments of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, we proceed to decide the instant case. We have observed that the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PE), tendered in evidence by the prosecutio n in this case does not give the details of the full protocols and the test applied at the time of analysis of sample of narcotics allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant.
Relevant/operative part of the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency tendered in evidence by the prosecution as (Ex.PE), reads as under: Item No. Description of Evidence 01 One sealed parcel containing approximately 55 gram (s) of suspected Charas.
Tests Performed on Received Item(s) of Evidence
1. Analytical Balance was used for weighing.
2. Chemical Spot Tests were used for Presumptive Testing.
3. Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometry was used for confirmation.
Result and Conclusion:- Item # 01 58.53 gram(s) of blackish brown resinous material in sealed parcel contains Charts.
Undisputedly , it is settled by now that any report failing to describe in it, the details of the full protocols and the tests applied will be inconclusive, unreliable suspicious and untrustworthy and will not meet the evidentiary presumption attached to a Report of the Government Analyst under section 36(2) of the Act ibid. In the report Ex.PE, it is simply mentioned that certain tests were conducted and contraband material recovered in this case found to be Charas instead of mentioning the details of tests applied on the samples and their protocols as required by law. The evidentiary value of above said report has been evaluated by us in the light of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. Rule 6 of the said D Rules makes it imperative on an analyst to mention result of material analyzed with full protocols applied thereon along with other details in the report issued for test/Analysis by the Laboratory .
8. We also find that the report (Ex.PE), of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency is not in line with the principles enunciated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "The State through Regional Director ANF vs. Imam Bakhsh and others" (2018 SCMR 2039 ). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced 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 evidentiary 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.
Rule 6 is, therefore, in the public interest and safeguards the rights of the parties. Any 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 Governmen t 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)".
The above said view has been further fortified in the recent case law titled as "Khair-ul-Bashar vs. The State"
(2019 SCMR 930). We have also requisitioned the attested copy of FIR in case of "Khair -ul-Basher " supra i.e., FIR No,]8, dated 15.01.2016, offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at police station Westridge, District Rawalpindi, as well as, attested copy of the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore, exhibited as Ex.PH, in the said case before the concerned trial Court. The report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore, produced in evidence as Ex.PH, in the case of "Khair -ul-Basher " supra is identical with the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore, produce d in the evidence of the present case before the learned trial Court as Ex.PE. As identical report in the case of " Khair -ul-Basher " supra has not been relied upon by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, therefore, the identical report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency produced in evidence of this case by the prosecution as Ex.PE, is also not worthy of reliance.
9. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has argued that the appellant cannot be acquitted on the abovementioned sole ground of non-mentioning of protoco ls/full details of test applied, in the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore but we have noted that the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Khair -ul-Bashar " supra, acquitted the accused of the said case on the abovementioned sole ground of non-mentioning of protocols/full details of the tests applied in the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore. Even otherwise it is by now well settled that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt would be sufficient to cast doubt about the veracity of prosecution case and the benefit of said doubt has to be extended in favour of the accused not as a matter of grace or concession but as a matter of right. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the cases of "Tariq Pervez vs. The State " (1995 SCMR 1345 ), "Akhtar Ali and others vs. The State" (2008 SCMR 06) and "Muhammad Zainan vs. The State and others " (2014 SCMR 749 ).
10. In the light of above discussion, the instant appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 205540-J of 2018), is allowed, impugned judgment dated 26.03.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tandlianwala, is hereby set aside and Javed Iqbal (appellant) is acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt. The appellant is in custody , he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.