Section 35 : Government Analyst
2023 PCrLJ 154 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
NAVEED DAUD VS State
35— Government Analyst— Scope— When the person who furnishes opinion and analyzing the samples is not qualified to be termed as Government Analyst under S. 35 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Rules framed thereunder then such report, even if it be in positive, is of no avail to the prosecution as it cannot be relied upon.
2023 PCrLJ 154 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
NAVEED DAUD VS State
Ss. 9(c) & 35—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R. 4—Trafficking of narcotics—Dispatch of sample for test or analysis—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Scope—Accused was convicted for having been apprehended while trafficking thirty six kilograms of charas in his motorcar—Evidence revealed that neither motorcar was registered in his name nor a driving license was taken into possession from him—Material discrepancies existed in the statements of prosecution witnesses which also gave a hint that the prosecution case was not free from doubt—All three important witnesses of the prosecution viz, complainant, Investigating Officer and marginal witness to the recovery memo. were oblivious as to departure from the police station and arrival back to the police station nor there were any written diaries in that respect—Complainant also showed his ignorance on certain material points—Samples were delivered in the Forensic Laboratory after a delay of about five days whereas the same were required to have been sent to the Forensic Laboratory within 72 hours of its seizure as required by R. 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001—Tests on samples were carried out by the Chemical Examiner, who was not qualified to be termed as a Government Analyst within the meaning of S. 35 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the rules framed thereunder, thus, he was so declared with retrospective effect—Conviction rendered by the Special Court was set aside—Accused was acquitted of the charge—Appeal against acquittal was allowed, in circumstances.
2021 MLD 1664 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
State VS ZAHID LATIF
Ss. 9, 6, 2(s), 35, 36 & Sched.—Possession of narcotic substances / drugs—Psychotropic substance—Government Testing to determine nature of recovered substance—Report of analyst—Requisite protocols—Scope—Whatever name a substance was labelled as by a manufacturing company on the injection, tablets or syrup, was for purpose of trading and copyright protection, and could not eject such substance from definition of “psychotropic substance”—-Question as to whether material recovered from accused fell within definition of “psychotropic substance” was to be determined in accordance with Ss.35 & 36 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and report of analyst under the same, must contain all protocols of tests applied for examination of contrabands and application of such protocols was more essential when material recovered was “psychotropic substance” or controlled substance.
2020 PCrLJ 1263 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
AMAN-UL-HAQ VS State
Ss. 35 & 36—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 3 & 6—Qualification of Government Analyst—Report of result of test or analysis by Government Analyst—Scope—Narcotic samples in each and every case are to be sent to such person, defined under S. 35, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with R. 3 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001—Emphasis that report of the Government Analyst must carry out the information required in the R. 6, Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 is to ensure that conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is based on reliable and credible report—Court can apply purposive interpretation of the statue to bridge the gap between the law and the safe administration of criminal justice system based on prudence, caution, circumspection and judiciousness—Aim of interpretation is to realize the purpose of the law and the purpose that text serves—Law is, thus, a tool designed to realize the social goal—Law is intended to ensure that social life of the community, on the one hand, and human rights, equality and justice on the other hand.
2020 PCrLJ 1263 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
AMAN-UL-HAQ VS State
Ss. 35 & 36—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 3 & 6—Qualification of Government Analyst—Report of result of test or analysis by Government Analyst—Scope—Transmission in safe custody of the narcotics to Testing Laboratory and compliance of the Act/Rules are mandatory in nature in respect of selection of Government Analysts and their results/analysis as per S. 36(1), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and R. 6 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 qua the results/analysis in the manner i.e. (i) all the tests and analysis of the alleged drug (ii) the result of each test(s) carried out along with the consolidated result and ( iii) the name of all the protocols applied, to carry out those tests—Provisions of the Act are to be complied with in letter and spirit, without fail and in case of failure, disciplinary action purportedly is to be taken in accordance with law—Government Analyst while giving the details of tests/analysis, the results for each test and the test protocols applied in the report, must remember that under S. 36 of the Act, the report of the Government Analyst, whilst being admissible in evidence without formal proof, is rebuttable and can be questioned, but the court is free to examine and assess whether it meets the requirements of the report under the Act and the Rules, even if the report is not rebutted by the accused—Concept of testing under the Act, the establishment of the testing laboratories, test and analysis and the report of the Government Analyst are premised on the assumption that the Government Analyst possesses the prescribed qualification provided under S. 35 of the Act read with R. 3 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and any deviation therefrom would affect the interest of public at large, not sustainable in the eye of law.
2019 SCMR 930 SUPREME-COURT
KHAIR-UL-BASHAR VS State
- 3—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 35—Narcotics—Government analyst—Qualifications—Concept of testing under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (‘the Act’), the establishment of the testing laboratories, tests and analysis and the report of the Government Analyst were premised on the assumption that the Government Analyst possessed the prescribed qualifications provided under S. 35 of the Act read with R. 3 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 (‘the Rules’) which provided that the Government Analyst shall be a person who has a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Chemistry or Medicine from a recognized University or of any other institution recognized by the Federal Government for such purpose and had not less than three years postgraduate experience in the test and analysis of drugs—Analysts who meet the said qualifications provided under the Act and the Rules must prepare these reports.
2016 PCrLJ 844 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD FAAZIL VS State
Ss. 9(c), 35 & 36—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Glaring discrepancies existed in the statements of both the prosecution witnesses—Defence witness produced by accused, was Deputy Assistant Director ASF, (Airport), who supported the version of accused; his statement could not be ignored—Analysis of the sample of recovered narcotics, was actually conducted by the Bio Chemist, and not by the Chemical Examiner himself—Bio Chemist could not be termed as Government Analyst in terms of S.35 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Report of Bio Chemist though bore the signatures of the Chemical Examiner, but same could not be equated or termed as a report prepared by the Government Analyst—Said report would become admissible only after fulfilling of the pre-requisite laid down in S.36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Prosecution, having failed to establish the substantial compliance of S.36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, rendered the report inadmissible—Statement of Chemical Examiner with regard to quantity of sample received by him, being discrepant, his report did not support the prosecution case on that aspect—Prosecution had failed to establish that the sample received in the Office of Chemical Examiner was actually related to the case—In the light of serious discrepancies, prosecution had failed to discharge its onus—Recovery proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer, were not free from doubt—Case of prosecution was fraught with doubts, and for earning relief of acquittal, accused was not obliged to establish number of circumstances creating doubts, but even a single circumstance, creating a reasonable doubt in the prudent mind, was sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to accused—Impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, was set aside; accused was acquitted of the charge levelled against him and was released, in circumstances.
2015 MLD 518 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
AMAN UL HAQ VS State
Ss.9(c) & 35—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R.3—Possession of narcotics—Government Analyst—Qualification—Substance weighing 15 kilograms recovered from secret compartment of car driven by accused was alleged to be narcotics—Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life—Validity—Narcotics substance was brought under processing from Forensic Science Laboratory report on 4-3-2009, while concerned officer was declared as Government Analyst on 5-8-2009 but with retrospective effect—Concerned declared Government Analyst lacked the required qualification as envisaged under S. 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, read with Rule 3 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001—Most crucial issue of forensic verification of narcotics was not carried out in accordance with prescribed manner as provided there, under the provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—High Court set aside conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court and remanded the case to Trial Court for decision afresh—Appeal was allowed accordingly.
2014 PCrLJ 1075 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AWAL RAEF VS State
Ss. 9(c), 34, 35 & 36—Recovery of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Chemical analysis—Industrial Analytical Centre report—Scope—Poppy straw weighing 2125 kilograms was recovered from vehicle driven by accused—Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life—Plea raised by accused was that chemical analysis was not done in accordance with law—Validity—Laboratory report produced by prosecution of alleged test violated the mandate of law, as Industrial Analytical Centre, even to prosecution was neither notified by Federal or Provincial Government to be a testing laboratory nor any official of such laboratory had been notified as Analyst—Such report submitted by prosecution could not be made basis of conviction for offence under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Alleged samples which according to prosecution were recovered from six jute bags out of 40 and were weighing six grams were never sent for chemical analysis—Remaining recovered substance was never sealed, therefore, fresh samples could not be drawn from remaining case property, as no sanctity could be attached to recovered remaining substance which had been allegedly lying in godown of authorities for more than five years and that too in unsealed condition—High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge—Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
2013 YLR 1683 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ABDUR RAHIM alias RAHIMAY VS State
Ss. 9(c), 34 & 35—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Contention of counsel for accused was that as the contraband was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory beyond stipulated period of 72 hours, it had made the report of Forensic Science Laboratory illegal and rendered the seizure invalid in the eye of law as provided in Rule 4 or 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001—Validity—Said Rules never placed any bar on the Investigating Officer to send the sample beyond seventy two hours of the seizure or receive the Forensic Science Laboratory’s report after fifteen days—Delay otherwise in sending the incriminating articles to concerned quarter for expert opinion, could not be treated as fatal to the prosecution case, nor it would vanish the evidentiary values of such a report—Forensic Science Laboratory’s Report had been signed by Chemical Examiner as well as by Chemical Expert, who were authorized officers in that respect under Ss.34 & 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Objection of accused that report was signed by Assistant Chemical Examiner, was repelled as any report submitted by duly Notified Assistant Chemical Examiner was a report of Government Analyst within the meaning of Ss.34 & 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and was admissible in evidence—Objection on admissibility of Forensic Science Laboratory’s Report, as far as non-presence or non-availability of embossing marks was concerned, recovery of contraband could not be negated on mere non-presence of embossing marks on the Forensic Science Laboratory’s Report, as nowhere was provided in Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 that such like report would have any embossing marks—No such rule had been framed so far—Recovery of huge quantity of narcotic from accused had been proved by the raiding party, who had no personal reasons to involve accused in the false case—Admission of accused that he dealt with business of narcotic, but he repented his ways, also supported the prosecution case without reasonable doubt—Legal sentence awarded to accused, did not require any interference by High Court, in circumstances.
2013 PCrLJ 1633 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD SHAKOOR VS State
Ss. 34, 35 & 36—Government Analyst—Scope—Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner both when notified under Ss.34 & 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, are considered to be Government Analyst as defined under S.36 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2012 SCMR 1276 SUPREME-COURT
SHAH MUHAMMAD VS State
Ss. 9(c) & 35—Possession of narcotic—Reappraisal of evidence—Allegation against the accused (appellant) was that he was apprehended after a pursuit and 340 kilograms of charas was recovered from the trunk of his car, which was present in seventeen (17) bags, each containing twenty (20) packets weighing 1 kilogram each—Trial Court convicted the accused under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Contentions of the accused were that there was a delay in sending the samples because of which possibility could not be ruled out that the samples were tampered with; that under S.35 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the Chemical Examiner was not a notified analyst, therefore, his report had to be excluded from consideration; that there was contradiction in the evidence of persecution witnesses as one of them stated that from each ‘packet’ 10 grams of charas had been separated for dispatch, while the other witness stated that 10 grams of charas sample had been taken out from each ‘bag’ and not packet; that accused had produced in his defence a police official, according to whom the accused was arrested on the day of the incident for some other offence and was released on the same day at 7-30 p.m., while the case of the prosecution was that the accused was arrested for the present case at 6-30 p.m., and that the samples were not taken from all the recovered packets but from only seventeen (17) packets, weighing 170 grams, therefore, case of the accused fell within the scope of S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Validity—Provincial Government had notified the Chemical Examiner in question through a notification—Since the proceedings before the Trial Court (Special Judge Narcotics) were conducted under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, therefore notification in favour of the Chemical Examiner in question would make him competent to prepare the report—With regard to contention of accused concerning delay in sending of samples, ground realities had to be realized that the police had less means of communication and manpower and in the absence of any evidence to presume that samples were tampered with, such an argument would not be available to the accused—Two official documents, i.e., F.I.R. and recovery memo, both stated the same fact that from each bag 10 grams of charas was separated for samples, and in such circumstances if the police official deviated from the facts by making an oral contrary statement, possibility could not be overruled that he was either mistaken or had forgotten the fact recorded by him in the documents or was making concessional statement—Regarding contention of accused that he was arrested for some other offence at the time of the alleged incident, the Trial Court had observed that the page containing the arrest and release was somewhat differently inserted with the rest of the pages of the police record, which would create doubt in the said contention—Sufficient ocular account of two witnesses was available to establish that huge quantity of charas was recovered from the possession of the accused—Said two witnesses had categorically stated that samples were taken out from each bundle, weighing 170 grams in total, and were sent for analysis to the Chemical Laboratory—Report of the Chemical Laboratory was positive—Both prosecution witnesses were at least consistent about the fact that seventeen (17) samples were taken from seventeen (17) bags/packets, and if each bag/packet was taken to be of one (1) kilogram, then the minimum quantity of charas from which samples were taken was proved to be seventeen (17) kilograms—Case of the accused, in such circumstances, would remain within the scope of S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
2011 PCrLJ 1203 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ISRAR VS State
Ss. 9, 35 & 48—Possessing, import or export and trafficking of narcotics—Report submitted by Chemical Examiner not duly notified—Effect—Accused was convicted and sentenced on report of Chemical Examiner who could not be termed as a Government Analyst in terms of S.35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—When the person analyzing the samples could not be termed as a Government Analyst, his report being devoid of any evidentiary worth could not form basis for conviction of accused—Re-examination of the samples of narcotic by a qualified Government Analyst, in circumstances, would be just and fair not only to accused, but to the prosecution as well and remand of case would be inevitable—Impugned conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, was set aside and case was sent for decision afresh after taking fresh samples and getting them examined from the Government Analyst duly appointed in terms of S.35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Rules made thereunder— Accused was released on bail, in circumstances.
2009 PLD 40 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
SHAH FAISAL VS State
Ss. 34 & 35—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.510—Setting up Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory and report of Chemical Examiner and Serologist etc.—Government was required to set up Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory or notify any other Laboratory or Institute as Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory—Under S.34 of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in addition to setting up a Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory, the Government had also been authorized to notify an already set up Laboratory or Institution to be a Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory—In pursuance of such powers the Government had issued Notification—Forensic Science Laboratory was a Narcotics Testing Laboratory set up by the Provincial Government and the Chemical Examiners posted therein had been notified to be Chemical Examiner under S.510, Cr.P.C.—After having been declared to be a Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory for the purpose of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the report of the Chemical Examiner would be a report as contemplated under S.34 of the Act—Chemical Examiner and Assistant Chemical Examiner appointed in the said Laboratory would be considered to be Government Analyst as envisaged under S.35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Any report submitted by a Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner notified under S.510, Cr.P.C. was a report of Government Analyst within the meaning of Ss.34 & 35 of the Act and admissible in evidence—In absence of any express exclusion of S.510, Cr.P.C., the reports of Chemical Examiner and Assistant Examiner notified under S.510, Cr.P.C. were also admissible in the case registered under the provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Provisions of S.35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, having been couched in affirmative words, same would not affect the provisions of S.510, Cr.P.C. making the report of duly notified Chemical Examiner admissible.
2009 PCrLJ 232 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI VS SAJJAD MUHAMMAD JAFFER
Ss. 6, 9, 34, 35 & 36—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.417 & 265-K—Appeal against acquittal—Special Court allowing application of accused persons filed under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. having acquitted them, Authority had filed appeal against said acquittal—Consignment in question was sent to Government Laboratory for examination and report of the laboratory was in negative—Consignment was then sent to Research Institute of Chemistry, which was not a Notified Laboratory within the meaning of S.34 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Validity—Government Laboratory had already opined that consignment did not contain any narcotic substance—Second Laboratory was not a notified laboratory and its Research Officer who gave the report, had not been notified as an official to test the material of narcotic substances under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Laboratory and the officer who gave the report did not come within the ambit of sections 34 to 36 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Such report, in circumstances, did not fulfil the requirements of law—No illegality or irregularity being in order of acquittal of accused, same did not require any interference.
2007 PCRLJ 156 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SAEED VS State
—Ss. 34, 35 & 47—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.510, Proviso—Chemical Examiner’s report—Report not strictly in accordance with provisions of Ss.34 & 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Applicability of S.510, Cr.P.C.—Scope–
2007 PCRLJ 1984 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
State VS SAJJAD MUHAMMAD JAFFER
—Ss. 9, 34, 35, 36 & 48—Appreciation of evidence—Government Analyst, report of—Allegation against accused was that their consignment contained narcotics but report of Government Laboratory was negative—Authorities again sent the sample to a Rese
2006 PLD 39 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ VS State
–Ss. 9(c), 25, 29, 35 & 36—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.103 & 516-A—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution, in order to prove apprehension of accused and recovery of Charas and opium from the secret cavities of the car, had produced two wi
2006 PCRLJ 846 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
IQBAL KHAN VS State
–Ss. 9(c), 21, 25, 29, 35 & 36—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.75—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution, in order to establish its case had produced two witnesses—Defence could not prove as to why police wo
2005 YLR 2321 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHERZADA KHAN VS State
—Ss. 34, 35 & 36—S.R.O. 596(I)/97 dated 7-8-1997—Recovery of huge quantity of heroin from active possession of accused—Chemical Examiner’s report— Scope—Provision of S.34, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 only directs that any institut
2002 PCRLJ 1402 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MAHMOOD KHAN VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 9, 29, 35 & 36—Appreciation of evidence—Sending sample of narcotic substances for chemical analysis—Provisions of Ss.35 & 36 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, did not specify any particular quantity of recovered substance to be se
2001 PCRLJ 951 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAYYAZ HUSSAIN VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 9(c), 34 & 35—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.540 & 439—Summoning of Chemical Examiner etc.—All Narcotics Testing Laboratories set up by the Provincial Governments had been treated to be Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratories for the
2001 PCRLJ 879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TASUWWAR HUSSAIN VS THE STATE
—Ss. 9-B, 34 & 35—Appreciation of evidence—Statement of the complainant Inspector who headed the raiding party, -caught hold of the accused on the spot and recovered heroin weighing one kilogram from him, was corroborated by another member of the ra
1999 YLR 870 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RAB NAWAZ, S.H.O. VS STATE
—-Ss. 34, 35 & 36—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.510—Narcotics Testing Laboratories and their reports —Validity–Various Laboratories have been set up by the Federal Government and Provincial Governments under S.34 of the Control of Narcot
1998 PCRLJ 832 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
RAFIULLAH VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
—-Ss. 561-A & 169—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34—Discharge of accused on the basis of defence evidence—Validity—Investigating Officer not only did not mention name of accused in either of the columns of challan, but had discharged him under
1998 PCRLJ 828 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL, SUB-INSPECTOR POLICE, DISTRICT KEHARI MITROO
—-Ss. 561-A & 156(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.20, 21, 34, 35 & 47—Quashing of F.I.R.—F,I.R. recorded against accused by Sub-Inspector of Police was sought to be quashed on ground that according to Notification S.R.0. 33