ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. This judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal No.288/2022 filed by the appellant (convict) Shoaib Ahmed son of Abdul Manan, against the judgment dated 30th May 2022 ("the impugned judgment") passed by learned Special Judge, CNS/Sessions Judge, Quetta ("the trial Court"), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances, Act, 1997 ("the CNS Act 1997") and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of Three (03) years with fine of Rs.50,000/- or in default thereof to further suffer six (06) months S.I., with the benefit of Section 382-8, Cr.P.C.
2. Facts of the case are that on 28th January 2022, the complainant Shah Jahan, SI/SHO lodged FIR No.14/2022 at Police Station Jinnah Town, Quetta; under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 with the averments that on the day of occurrence he along with other police officials was on patrolling duty, at about 05:45 p.m. when they reached at Maidani Gobar Hotel, where found a person in suspicious condition holding a white colour bag the his hand coming from Samungli Road Killi Ismail. who was apprehended. On query, he disclosed his name as Shoaib Ahmed son of Abdul Manan. The search of white colour bag was conducted which resulted into recovery of six slabs of backed Charas weighing 500 grams each slab, total weighing 3000-grams; thus out of which 10/10 grams were separated from each slab for chemical analysis and sealed in parcel Nos.1 to 6, while the remaining contraband was sealed in parcel Nos.1-A to 6-A.
3. After completion of investigation and on receipt of Challan, the trial Court indicted the charge to appellant, who denied the same and during trial the prosecution examined four (04) witnesses.
Whereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. He neither recorded his statement on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any witness in his defence. On conclusion of trial and after hearing arguments, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above in Para No. 1 . Whereafter, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the available record. Perusal of record reveals that it is a case of no evidence at all and the learned trial Court while delivering the impugned judgment has reached to a wrong conclusion by awarding conviction and sentence to the appellant. Without adverting to the statements of rest of witnesses, it would be appropriate to dilate upon the statement of safe custody i.e. the Incharge of Malkhana Masood Ahmed Gohar, ASI appeared as PW-3, who received the samples from the PW-4 (Kamran Iqbal, SI/I.O) and made entries thereof in register No. 19, but failed to produce and exhibit the copy of register No.19 on the Court record, thus created serious doubts in the case of prosecution with regard to establishing of the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics. The column 5 and 6 of the register No.19, which provides that every article placed in the strong-room shall be entered and removal of any such article shall also be noted in the appropriate column, but in the instant case, the Incharge of Malkhana has failed to produce the register from which it could be ascertained that whether the signatures of the Investigation Officer of the case are obtained in the register No.19 at the time of receiving the samples as well as while handing over the samples for onward transmission to the office of chemical expert or otherwise, which could support the case of the prosecution. The above material discrepancies show that the prosecution has compromised the safe custody of the narcotics and created a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of "Ahmed Ali and another v. The State, (2023 SCMR 781)" wherein held as under: "Thus, the Police Rules mandate that case property be kept in the Malkhana and that the entry of the same be recorded in Register No. XIX of the said police station. It is the duty of the police and prosecution to establish that the case property was kept in safe custody, and if it was required to be sent to any laboratory for analysis, to further establish its safe transmission and that the same was also recorded in the relevant register, including the road Certificate, etc. The procedure in the Police Rules ensures that the case property, when is produced before the court, remains in safe custody and is not tampered with until that time. A complete mechanism is provided in Police Rules qua safe custody and safe transmission of case property to concerned laboratory and then to trial Court."
5. Admittedly, all the ingredients, guidelines and directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to safe custody of the recovered contraband and its safe transmission from the Police Station to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory have been violated. It is well settled proposition of law that when a specific method is provided for doing any legal act in a specified procedure, thus such act is required to be done in that manner, deviation from such procedure 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 he 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."
6. 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 there are certain legal defects and discrepancies apparent on the face of record, which rendered the entire case as doubtful, but the trial Court while delivering the impugned judgment has failed to extend the benefits of such doubts in favour of the appellant.
For the above reasons this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 30th May 2022 passed by learned Special Judge, CNS/Sessions Judge; Quetta is set-aside and the appellant Shoaib Ahmed son of Abdul Manan, is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged after lapse of appeal period.
Above are the reasons of our short order dated 14th October 2024.