M UHAM M AD IQBAL KALHORO, J. Appellant was arrested by a police party headed by ASI Imdad Ali Mubeejo of P.S, Kot Lalu during patrolling from a link road leading from Jarge village, near Dera Shakh Bridge, Taluka Faiz Ganj-Khairpur on 26.04.2022 at 1500 hours and from his possession, 25Q grams of Charas was recovered. He was accordingly booked and tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mirwah who, vide impugned judgment dated 19.09.2023, has convicted and sentenced him to suffer R.I for three years and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default, to suffer S.I for six months more with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. Learned Judge has founded his findings on the basis of evidence of four witnesses including complainant, mashir, who had witnessed the recovery, and I.O of the case, besides the one who had taken the property to Chemical Lab for analysis.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has pointed out to the chemical report and submits that the same has come in negative. It has been determined by the Lab that the substance was not Charas, yet the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant. This fact has been confirmed by learned Additional P.G, who has drawn our attention to page-43 of the paper book, where report of Chemical Lab is available. It has been specifically concluded therein that the sample is not contains Charas.(sic)
3. We have perused the impugned judgment. Learned trial Court has not discussed this point in the entire judgment, and without referring to the report of Chemical Analyzer and conclusion, has convicted and sentenced the appellant, which has apparently resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. An accused can be convicted and sentenced in narcotics cases only when the substance recovered from him is found by chemical analyzer to be the narcotics. If the lab report in regard to substance is negative and there is no evidence to rebut the same and conclude the substance to be the narcotics. Irrespective of the quality of evidence of the witnesses, accused cannot be held guilty of committing an offence under the provisions of CNS Act, 1997. Because in such circumstances the charge would become groundless. Learned trial Judge in presence of negative report could have opted to refer the substance to another lab for cross checking and second opinion if he was not satisfied with the report. But he chose to bypass it and decide the case on the basis of evidence completely ignoring the findings of lab qua nature of substance allegedly recovered from the appellant.
4. We, therefore, while allowing this appeal set aside conviction and sentence and acquit the appellant of the charge. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Before parting with this judgment, we direct the Presiding Officer of the Court to file comments justifying findings in the impugned judgment in the light of report of Chemical Analyzer and question No.2 in the statement of appellant under section 342 Cr.P.C. in regard to chemical report within one week for a perusal in chamber. Such report be called from the Presiding Officer of the Court through the relevant Sessions Judge.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.