ANW A ARUL HAQ PANNUN, J.---Through this appeal under Section 48 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA, 1997), the appellant Rashid alias Bhori has challenged his conviction and sentence awarded to him, vide judgment dated 30.06.2016, passed in case/FIR No.452, dated 27.11.201 4, offence under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997, registered at Police Station Sarwar Shaheed, District Muzaf fargarh, passed by learned Addl.
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CNS), Kot Addu, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 "to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default, he shall further undergo 01 year and 04 months simple imprisonment. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr .P.C. was extended to the convict."
2. The prosecution's version as contained in the FIR (Exh.PC), lodged on the complaint of Muhammad Ilyas ASI (Exh.PB) is that on 27.11.2014 at about 2.40 p.m., on receipt of spy information, the complainant along with other police officials conducted raid at Street Haroon Wali, apprehended the accused/appellant along with while colour bag/gatto. On checking of the bag/gatto, 15 K.G "Doday of Poast" were recovered, out of which, 500-grams were sealed as a sample parcel and both were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh. P A:
3. After investigation and on receiving the report under section 173, Cr.P.C., the learned trial Judge took the cognizance, supplied the requisite copies under Section 265(c), Cr.P.C. to the appellant, framed the charge, to which, he pleaded not guilty , proceeded to record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-6). The learned Prosecutor gave up Muhammad Imran 1632/C being unnecessary and while tendering positive report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore (Exh.PE) closed the evidence of the prosecution. The appellant when examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., refuted the prosecution evidence and while replying to the question "why this case and why the PWs deposed against him", replied as under: "In fact the local police entered into the house of accused brothers namely Nasir , Kashif and Asif. The house of accused is adjacent to the house of his brothers. Only scuffle took place between the police and my brothers. I was present at that time. The local police in order to take revenge registered false FIR No.47/14 under sections 9-C, 324, 325, 353, 186 and 34, P.P.C. The local police also registered instant false case on the asking of Muhammad Saleem SI complainant of FIR No.47/14 just to teach lesson. I produce copy of FIR No. 47/14 as Mark-A."
"All the PWs are police officials and are also subordinate of the I.O. On the asking of I.O., this case and on the asking of Muhammad Saleem SI, they have deposed falsely against me in the Court."
Neither the appellant opted to record his statement under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. or produced any evidence in his defence. n the conclusion of trial, the learned rial. Judge had convicted and sentenced e appellant through the impugned judgment as alluded to in para. No.1 of the instant judgment. Hence, this appeal.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Muhammad Asif 1923/HC (PW-1) pt the case property and sample parcel in the malkhana for safe custody and on 7.12.2014 he handed over the sample parcel to Shahid Feroz 505/C for onward transmission to the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore. Shahid Feroz 505/C (PW-2) deposited the sample parcel in the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency . Lahore on next day. Muhammad Ilyas ASI, complainant (PW-3) and Ghulam Hussain 1656/C (PW-4) are the recovery witnesses of the alleged contraband. Muhammad Abid Sharif SI (PW-5) drafted formal FIR (Exh.PC). Mureed Hussain SI, (PW -6) is Investigating Of ficer of the case.
6. Muhammad Asif 1923/HC(PW -1) deposed that on 07.12.2014, he handed over the sample parcel to Shahid Feroz 505/C for onward transmission to the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency . Shahid Feroz 505/C (PW-2) deposed that on 07.12.2014, Muhammad Asif 1923/HC Moharrir handed over to him one sealed parcel of 500 grams Doday of Poast for onward transmission to the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore for analysis, which he deposited the same in the said office on next day. There is no explanation that in which capacity he had kept the sample parcel in his possession and deposited the same in the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore on next day. Contrary to the above, in report (Exh.PE), the date of submission of the sample parcel in the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore is mentioned as 09.12.2014 and not on 08.12.2014 i.e. the following day of 08.12.2014. Hence, in the light of above, the safe custody of the sample parcel cannot be proved, rendering the prosecution's case to be doubtful and under the law, the doubt is always to be resolved in favour of the accused. It has been held in case titled "The State through Regional Director ANF v.
Imam Bakhsh and others "(2018 SCMR 2039 ) that:- "The chain of custody begins with the recovery of the seized drug by the Police and includes the separation of the representative sample(s) of the seized drug and their dispatch to the Narcotics Testing Laboratory . This chain of custody , is pivotal, as the entire construct of the Act and the Rules rests on the Report of the Government Analyst, which in turn rests on the process of sampling and its safe and secure custody and transmission to the laboratory .
The prosecution must establish that the chain of custody was unbroken, unsuspicious, indubitable, safe and secure. Any break in the chain of custody or lapse in the control of possession of the sample, will cast doubts on the safe custody and safe transmission of the sample(s) and will impair and vitiate the conclusiveness and reliability of the Report of the Government Analyst, thus, rendering it incapable of sustaining conviction.
This Court has already held in Amjad Ali v. State (2012 SCMR 577) and Ikramullah v. State (2015 SCMR 1002 ) that where safe custody or safe transmission of the alleged drug is not established, the Report of the Government Analyst becomes doubtful and unreliable.
7. In view of above, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. For earning the acquittal, the accused is not obliged to establish a number of circumstances creating doubts but even a single circumstance, creating a reasonable doubt in the prudent mind is sufficient to extend him the benefit of doubt, in the shape of his acquittal. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case titled "Muhammad Ashraf and others v. The State and others" (PLD 2015 Lahore 1) and "Muhammad Zaman v. The State and others" (2014 SCMR 749). Consequently , we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (CNS), Kot Addu and acquit the appellant from the charge levelled agains t him. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case.