Report of Government Analyst---Protocols.

Judgements of Supreme Court of Pakistan

.............

2020 SCMR 196

Report of Government Analyst---Protocols /procedure---Confirmatory forensic conclusions to establish narcotic character of a substance must be supported by the protocol/procedure mandated by R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Non-compliance of R. 6 would render the report of the Government Analyst inconclusive, suspicious and untrustworthy and would not meet the evidentiary assumption attached to such report.

.......................................

PLD 2020 SC 57

Report of Government Analyst---Essential requirements---Power of Court to summon Analyst---Scope---To serve the purposes of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, the report of the Government Analyst must contain three elements, i.e the tests applied; the Protocols applied to carry out these tests; and, the result of the test(s)---Once the said three requirements under R. 6 were contained in the Report of the Government Analyst, any ambiguity therein may be resolved by the Trial Court by exercising its power under proviso to S. 510, Cr.P.C.---Said provision stated that the Court may, if it considered necessary in the interest of justice, summon and examine the person by whom such report had been made---Trial Court while examining the said report had the power to summon the Government Analyst in case there was any ambiguity in the said Report and seek clarification thereof---Such clarification could only be based on the existing record of the Government Analyst and did not mean to allow the Government Analyst to conduct a fresh test or prepare another Report, for that would amount to giving the prosecution a chance of filling the gaps and lacunas in the report---Trial Court must also be mindful of the legal position that the per se admissibility of the report i.e. without examining the Analyst (expert) did not vouch for its evidentiary value---Courts were free to examine the contents of the report and to assess its evidentiary value (weight), a matter distinct from its admissibility.

Report of Government Analyst---Essential requirements---Report of the Government Analyst must show that the test applied was in accordance with a recognized standard protocol---Any test conducted without a protocol lost its reliability and evidentiary value---To serve the purposes of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, the report of the Government Analyst must contain three elements, i.e the tests applied; the Protocols applied to carry out these tests; and, the result of the test(s)---Report of the Government Analyst which did not specify the Protocols of the tests applied did not meet the requirements of the law---Such a Report could not be relied upon for the conviction of an accused. [Context of 'Protocols ' as explained in the judgment reported as (Ikramullah's case 2015 SCMR 1002, Imam Bakhsh's case 2018 SCMR 2039 and Khair-ul-Bashar's case 2019 SCMR 930) further clarified].

.......................................

2019 SCMR 930

Government analyst report, preparation of---Mandatory requirements---Report of the Government Analyst, prepared in consequence of R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, must provide for, firstly, tests and analysis of the alleged drug; secondly, the results of the test(s) carried out, and, thirdly the test Protocols applied to carry out these tests---Said three elements formed the fundamental and the core elements of a valid Report prepared by a Government Analyst---Non-compliance of R. 6 and absence of any of the said mandatory elements/requirements frustrated the purpose and object of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ('the Act'), thereby diminishing the reliability and evidentiary value of the Report---Under S. 36 of the Act, the report of the Government Analyst, whilst being admissible in evidence without formal proof, was rebuttable and could be questioned by the accused, inter alia, on the ground of non-compliance of the information required under R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Judgment reported as State v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) purposively interpreted the Act and (rightly) found R. 6 to be a mandatory provision regarding information to be reflected in the Report of the Analysts.

.......................................

2018 SCMR 2039

Report of Government Analyst---Rule 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 was directory while R. 6 was mandatory to the extent that the full Protocols ought to be mentioned in the report of the Government Analyst---Non-compliance of R. 6, in such context, would render the report of the Government Analyst inconclusive and unreliable.