FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---In this appeal while seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the appellant had attacked the validity of the report of Chemical Examiner by arguing that 2100 grams of heroin was recovered but one gram as sample was sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis. That the quantity sent for analysis was grossly inadequate and on the basis of such tiny sample it was not possible for the expert to form his expert opinion. Apart from this the report does not appear to have been singed. The opinion ought to have been exhaustive and self-contained. That the report was produced for the first the when the petitioner was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. And no opportunity was given to him to explain the allegation against him. Reliance was placed on Din Muhammad v. The Crown (1969 SCM R 777) and Sultan Khan v. Sher Khan and others (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 520). Leave to appeal was granted to consider the above contentions vide order dated 19th I April, 1995.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly the appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was not put the report of the Chemical Examiner which is violative of the mandatory provision of law. Reliance can be placed on Din Muhammad v. The Crown (1969 SCM R 777). Similarly the report of the Chemical Examiner having been pleaded on record for the first the on 2-3-1991 in the statement of Ehtisham Hassan, Legal Inspector while closing the prosecution case, as such no opportunity was provided to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses in the light of the aforementioned Chemical Examiner report to which objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. Although ~ generally in such-like cases when illegality or material irregularity is found in the trial of the accused remand of the order is not resorted to but in the instant case when huge quantity of narcotics is recovered and offence is heinous one acquittal of the accused, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellant, would defeat the ends of justice. We, therefore, while accepting this appeal, set aside the judgment/order of the Courts below and remand the case to the trial Court for de novo trial and decision on merits. The appellant who has been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 19th April, 1995, shall remain on bail till the conclusion of the trial.