' NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, J.--- This appeal, filed by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 12-3-1992 of Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar whereby Muhammad Aslam respondent was acquitted of the offences under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. A.S.I. Muhammad Ismail, C.I.A., Bahawalnagar received information on 11-8-1991 that the respondent was a dealer in narcotics. The said complainant sent one Muhammad Nawaz as a test purchaser to the respondent who came after some time and informed the former that a bargain had been struck with the respondent for purchase of one kilogram heroin for Rs,20,000 and he had accepted an amount of Rs,1,000 as an advance. Subsequently at about 8-00 p.m. On the same day the complainant alongwith a party of police officials went to bridge Saim Nala in the limits of Chak No,120/6-R where transaction had to be finalized at about 8-40 p.m. The respondent arrived at the spot having a bag in his hand. He was overpowered by the police party and the bag which was in his hand was searched and heroin weighing one kilogram was recovered. Thereafter the said complainant, A.S.I. Made parcel of the recovered heroin as well as a parcel of 10 grams which were separated from the bulk powder as sample for chemical analysis. He also sent written complaint to Police Station Faqirwali.
3. After investigation the respondent was sent up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, who charged him under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition Order to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial 4 witnesses were produced from the prosecution side. P.W.1 Nasir Mehmud, H.C.
Recorded F.I.R. On the basis of written complaint. P.W.2 A.S.I. Muhammad Ismail is the complainant.
He proved the recovery of one kilogram of heroin from the possession of the respondent. He also stated that he had separated 10 grams from the bulk powder for chemical analysis and had also sent written complaint to the police station for registration of the case. He also stated that he had handed over the parcel of sample as well as the remaining bulk powder in the police station for safe custody and for onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner P.W.3 Muhammad Nawaz was sent as test purchaser to the respondent. He also attested the recovery memo. Prepared by the complainant after the recovery of the heroin from the respondent. P.W.4 Khalid Rasheed, Excise Inspector was also present at the spot when personal search of the respondent was carried out and heroin was recovered from his possession. He was also a witness of the recovery memo.
5. The respondent was also an employee of the Police Department and he denied the commission of the offence and further stated that he had been involved due to personal enmity with Muhammad Ismail, AS.I. And P.W. Muhammad Nawaz. He also made a deposition on oath to the same effect. He also produced 2 defence witnesses who corroborated his deposition under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
6. It shall be seen that no evidence was brought on the record to show as who had taken the parcel of the sample to the Office of the Chemical Examiner. Although the report of the latter is on the record but it cannot be taken into consideration because there was no evidence to connect this report with the heroin which was alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the respondent. It is the duty of the prosecution to produce all evidence which is required to effectively implicate any accused with the commission of the offence and such evidence should connect the accused with the offence beyond any doubt whatsoever. In the case in hand an important link in the chain is missing as no evidence was available to show whether the sample was taken to the Office of the Chemical Examiner or not and whether the sample which was examined by the latter was in fact a sample taken in the case to which the report pertained.
7. In the circumstances the learned Sessions Judge arrived at a correct conclusion in acquitting the respondent. We do not find any material to arrive at a different conclusion. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.