1. ' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---By this criminal revision application under sections 435, 439 and 561- A, Cr.P.C., the applicant Muhammad Ayub son of Shahzado Khan has called in question an order dated 13-4-1998 passed by the Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Shikarpur, in Special Case No,37 of 1997, thereby allowing an application filed by the District Attorney Special Prosecutor, with the prayer for sending the Narcotic Substance recovered from the applicant to some Government Chemical Examiner for its examination and report as a special case.
2. ' Succinctly, the relevant facts of the case are that on 27-11-1997 at 11-30 hours, S.I.P. Khalid Hussain Dreho, lodged a complaint at Police Station Stalin Ganj, Shikarpur that he along with his subordinate constabulary consisting of P.Cs. Inayatullah, Muhammad Chuttal and Gulzar Ahmed, after making necessary entry in the Roznamcha, left for patrolling. During patrolling Law Enforcing Agency informed them near Goal Market, that one Muhammad -Ayub son of Shahzado ItharyPathan had last night gone for purchasing opium and will come back to his house in the morning. On the basis of such information when they reached near the house of Muhammad Ayub they saw a person in the street having a plastic bag in his hand coming from southern side, who on seeing them tried to avoid, but was encircled and caught hold of along with plastic bag. O enquiry he disclosed his name as Muhammad Ayub son of Shahzado Khan Pathan. When the plastic bag was opened, lumps of opium, 36 bullets of G-3, 20 bullets of .303 and 2 bullets of LMG were found in it. Accused failed to show any licence for the bullets and he was taken into custody in presence of PC Inayatullah and PC Gulzar as Mashir. His body search was made but nothing was found. The opium secured was weighed and found 3.5 kgs in weight, out of which 100 grams were separated for the purpose of sample and rest was separately sealed and Such complaint under section 13-A, Arms ordinance and section 6/9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act was lodged. Vhen the case was challaned before the sessions Judge (Special Judge), Shikarpur being Special Case No,3.7 of 1997, a bail application was moved by the applicant. Arguments on the bail application were heard on 19-3-1998, however on 2-4-1998 the 1 earned Special Prosecutor moved an application under sect ion 5 I 6-A, Cr. P . C . Wherein he prayed for sending the whole Narcotics Substance recovered from the accused for chemical examination, to some Government Chemical Examiner on the ground that t e report of the Chemical Examiner earlier revived be the Court contained interpolation.
3. ' A notice of 'this application was given to the learned counsel for the accused and thereafter of Both the learned counsel were heard by the trial Court and the impugned order dated 13-4-1998 was passed. The operative part of which reads as under:- "Since there is interpolation in the Chemical Examiner's report, its manipulation cannot be ruled out.
4. It is, therefore, in the interest of justice that whole substance may be sent for examination.
5. Accordingly I grant the application of the Prosetutor and direct that the whole substance, recovered from the accused, may be re-sealed in presence of the Court and referred for analysis to the Chemical Examiner at Islamabad through the S.H.O. Of Police Station concerned. Hearing of the bail application is deferred till the receipt of the report."
6. ' Mr. Abdul Fattah Malik the learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that the impugned order of the trial Court is alleged as after the receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report, which was in negative, the trial Court was not competent to entertain an application from ' the prosecution side for sending the alleged Narcotic Substance recovered from the applicant to another Chemical Examiner for another report, and such exercise of power by the trial Court resulted in filling up the lacunas in the prosecution case and reflected a partial approach of the trial Court. Learned counsel further contended that there is no provision of law under which trial Court could exercise such power and therefore the order of the trial Court dated 13-4-1998 is liable to be set aside.
7. ' Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar, A.A.-G. Controverting these arguments, has submitted that mere mentioning of a wrong section in an application will not take away the jurisdiction of the trial Court for the purpose of sending the Narcotic Substance recovered from the applicant for a second report of a Chemical Examiner, specially in the circumstances, when the earlier. Report was relating to a nominal quantity of Narcotic Substance recovered from the applicant and there was a specific allegation about some interpolation it the earlier report of the Chemical Examiner, and the trial Court had reached to a conclusion that such interpolation cannot be ruled out.
8. ' We 'have carefully considered the arguments advanced. Before us and have also perused the relevant record.
9. ' A perusal of the application dated 2-4-1998, moved by the Special Prosecutor before the trial Court, reveals that a prayer for sending the Narcotic Substance for a second report from some Government Chemical Examiner was mainly made by the prosecution on the allegation of interpolation in the earlier report of the Chemical Examiner received by the Court. The trial Court while passing the impugned order has also taken into the consideration this aspect of the matter and observed that 'possibility of such manipulation cannot be ruled out.
10. In the given facts and circumstances we are of the view that, to meet the ends of justice, the trial Court was fully justified in passing such order for sending the remaining whole substance to another Chemical Examiner for his report. The learned counsel for the applicant failed to show any provisions of law debarring the trial Court front exercising such powers. It is settled legal position that the rules of procedure, are meant for the purpose of proper and effective administration of justice and Unless the Court is debarred, under some specific provision of law, from exercising such powers, which may be necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of some case, exercise of such power cannot be termed as illegal or without jurisdiction. For the other arguments of the learned counsel that the application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Was not maintainable. It may be observed that it is the substance of an application, rather then its caption, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding such application. Reference may be made to the case of Abdul Khalil v. The State (1997 PCr.11 198).
11. ' For the foregoing reasons this criminal revision application is without merits and is accordingly dismissed.