THE STATE through Collector of Customs (Preventive) Government of Pakistan vs SAJJAD MUHAMMAD JAFFER and 2 others

ORDER

' RAHAMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.--- The present appeal is directed against the order dated 18-1-2006 passed by learned Judge, Special Court-I (C.N.S.) Karachi by which the learned Judge, allowed the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Filed by the respondent and acquitted them.

' Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 10-7-2004 consignment of 1280 oil filters containing narcotics were detected .The consignment was sent to Government Laboratory for examination and report. The report was in negative therefore it was again sent to HEJ Research Institute of Chemistry. Industrial Analytical Centre, University of Karachi. The said report reveals the substance found in the oil filters contained traces of narcotic substance. The learned trial Judge formed the opinion that the latter laboratory was not a notified laboratory therefore the application was allowed.

' The learned Advocate for the appellant has conceded that the HEJ Research Institute of Chemistry, Industrial Analytical Centre, University of Karachi was not a notified laboratory within the meaning of section 34 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 however he has stated that as the traces of narcotic were found therefore the case is required to be remanded to the trial Court.

' The learned Advocate for the respondents has stated that the earlier report of the Government Laboratory is in negative; that the subsequent laboratory is not a notified laboratory therefore its report cannot be considered.

' Sections 34, 35 and 36 deal with the laboratory and reports. The said sections are as under:---

34. Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory, etc. (1) The Federal Government may, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, set-up a Federal Narcotic Testing Laboratory and such other institutes and narcotics testing research laboratories or notify and other laboratory of institute to be a Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory for carrying out the purpose of this Act.

(2) The Provincial Government may, wherever deems appropriate, set-up Provincial Narcotics Testing Laboratories.

35. Government Analyst. The Federal Government or a Provincial Government, may, by Notification in the official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Federal Government Analysts or, as the case may be, Provincial Government Analysts, of such areas and in respect of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances as may be specified in the notification

36. Reports of Government Analysts.-- The Government Analyst to whom a sample of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substance or controlled substance has been submitted for test and analysis shall delver to the person submitting it, a signed report in quadruplicate in the prescribed form and forward one copy thereof to such authority as may be prescribed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any document purporting to be a report signed by a Government Analyst shall be admissible as evidence of the facts stated herein without formal proof and such evidence shall, unless rebutted, be conclusive."

' From the above provisions of law, it is clear that firstly a laboratory is to be notified by the Federal Government or Provincial Government to be testing laboratory, thereafter the said Governments are required to appoint an official for analysis through a notification and if the said officer of the notified laboratory gives report then it can be used as evidence.

In the present case, the Government Laboratory had already opined that the consignment did not contain any narcotic substance. The second laboratory is not a notified laboratory. The officer viz. Danish Idris, Research Officer who gave the report has not been notified as an official to test the material of narcotic substance under the Act therefore the laboratory and the officer who gave the report do not come within the ambit of sections 34 to 36 of Control of Narcotic Substances, Act, 1997 hence the said report does not fulfil the requirements of law.

' We have gone through the impugned order and found that there is no illegality or irregularity in it therefore it does not require any interference, hence the appeal is dismissed.