Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. "Whether the report of the Public Analyst containing bare opinion, without there being any full and complete data disclosing the tests or experiments performed by him, can be attached any probative evidentiary value to be used against the accused for recording the order of conviction and sentence against him?" This in short is the question that arises for consideration in the context and back-drop of the following facts-situation.

2. The prosecution case, as per the evidence of the P.S.I.-Jawansinh P. Barad (P.W.-3, Exh.-9) is that when on 6-1-1988 at about 19-45 hours, he was on duty at Sagrampura Police Station, Surat, he received an information that one person was selling 'Charas' in a bye-lane known as "Dhabuwali Gali". Acting on this tip-off, he immediately requisitioned the services of two panch witnesses, viz., Prasanna Shankarrao Shinde (P.W.-1, Exh.-6) and Mukesh Bholanath Trivedi (examined by the accused as the defence witness) and in company of other two Police Constables, viz., Vijay Chetram Patil (P.W.-2, Esh.-8) and Balvant Arjan and Ganpat Badalsing (not examined) proceeded to the said 'Dhabuwali Gali' for raid and reached there at 20-00 p.m. On seeing the raiding party approaching, one person started running who was immediately chased and caught on the spot. On interrogation in the presence of Panchas, he disclosed his name as Annu @ Mahmad Hanif Shaikh Ibrahim. Thereafter, on taking search of his person, from the back-side pocket of his pant, a small pouch was taken out which contained about 10 grams of 'Charas' and while searching the other pocket currency notes of Rs. 4/- were recovered. These muddamal articles were thereafter seized in the presence of two panchas and were wrapped up in a packet. The same thereafter was affixed with two slips containing signatures of panchas and was sealed by applying wax-seal bearing mark "PSI-JPB". After the search and seizure formality was over, the accused was arrested and a Complaint Exh. 10 was filed by P.S.I.-Barad against him on the very day at 21-45 hours, before P.S.I, (name not legible) Athwa Line Police Station, Surat, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "Narcotic Act") The same was thereafter further investigated by the complainant P.S I.-Barad himself who recorded statement of various persons who accompanied him at the time of the raid. Thereafter, P.S.I.-Barad forwarded the sealed packet of muddamal 'charas' to the S.P. (Western Division), Surat, with a forwarding letter dated 6-1-1988 (Exh. 11) which appears to have been received by him on the same day. This in turn was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 15-2-1988 with the Police Constable Dalpatsinh. The Public Analyst thereafter examining the same forwarded his report Exh. 12 stating therein that the same was 'cannabis sativa' i.e., "Charas", to P.S.I. -Barad who on the basis of the same submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant-accused for the aforesaid alleged offence, to stand trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Surat.

7. Now having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties quite at length, it appears to this Court that the contentions raised by Mr. Saiyed are well-founded and deserves to be accepted at once. We have carefully perused report Exh. 12 of the Public Analyst dated Nil addressed to the P.S.I.-Athwa Lines Police Station, Surat. This report reflects the following particulars: Firstly, that on 15-2-1988 the office of Forensic Sciences had received one muddamal sample in matter of an offence under Section 20 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered as C.R. No. 12 of 1988 by Athwa Lines Police Station, Surat through special messenger-Police Constable Dalpatsing (B. No. 1973). Secondly, the same was analysed on 29-2-1988; Thirdly, one sealed sample alongwith specimen seal affixed were found therein; Forthly, description about the contents of the said parcel stating "the sealed paper-packet contain one polythene bag having 5.960 grams of blackish brown coloured lump enclosed within another yellow coloured polythene bag"; Fifthly the result of the analyst to the effect that 'the contents of the exhibit was identified as the material of plant "cannabis sativa" (Charas); Sixthly, this Exh. 12 report is signed by Mr. M.C. Chapaneri, Sr. Scientific Assistant-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government of Gujarat, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Surat. Now, on perusal of the above report, by no stretch of imagination, the same can be said to be full and complete, disclosing the scientific tests or experiments performed by the Public Analyst. Except the bare opinion and assertion that the muddamal article was "Charas" there is indeed nothing on the basis of which this Court can independently test and assess the truthfulness and genuineness of the said Public Analyst's Report Exh. 12. In such serious cases under the Narcotic Act, where rightly the Legislature has prescribed stringent punishment of R.I. for not less than 10 years which may as well extend to 20 years and also liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, and the same may also as well extend to two lakh rupees, if on the one hand bald assertions of the Complainant-Police Officer and thereafter the F.S.L. report which indicates jumping to the conclusion rather than any analysis is to be mechanically accepted, without testing the same, it would be simply hazardous and risky to convict and sentence the accused on such laconic evidence. We are quite conscious of the fact that the Narcotic offences like most contiguous dreadly disease, is fast spreading in our society. It is not less deadly than the dreaded disease like Cancer and AIDS, and therefore, once a person is found to have committed the said offence, there indeed cannot be any question of showing any mercy to him, but at the same time, if the prosecution stops at mere allegations against the person of having committed Narcotic offence without there being any dependable verifiable evidence in support of the same, by way of report of the Public Analyst, it would indeed be totally imprudent and unjust to act upon the same. In fact, in such type of cases under the Narcotic Act, every Public Analyst must be alert, honest, conscientious and copy-book exact in discharge of his important duties, viz., preparing the final report. The duties of the Public Analyst mainly consist three important dimensions - (1) At the time of the receipt of the sample for analysing from the concerned Investigating Agency, (2) Actually analysing the sample and (3) Despatching back the Report of analysis to Investigating Agency. Accordingly, to start with -firstly, when the Public Analyst receives a packet containing sample of muddamal, he must invariably note-down the following material particulars:

(xi) Date of receipt of the report, (xii) Date of Analysis of sample.

(xiii) Whether on opening the packet, slips containing signatures of the Panchas, accused and that of the Investigating Officer are there or not?

(xiv) Weight of the muddamal article, etc.

8. All these as far as possible should be meticulously reflected in the Analyst's report itself for the simple reason that these material particulars are very much necessary in order to compare and establish the identity of the muddamal sample with the one seized and sealed from the accused under Panchnama, and thereafter forwarded by the Investigating Agency to the Public Analyst and ultimately despatched back to be produced before the Court as the very same only and none other. Secondly, while analysing muddamal sample, he must specifically mention the scientific tests conducted and the results derived therefrom. If by chance in hurry or haste or through oversight, the scientific tests are not mentioned in the report, that is fatal to the prosecution as any ipse-dixit way of reporting cannot be accepted in criminal trial as it has no probative evidentiary value in the eye of Law ! Thirdly, even after carefully discharging the aforesaid two duties, the Public Analyst has further still to discharge one more duty, viz., to send the report of his analysis to the Investigating Agency under its official seal. It is precisely upon the careful discharge of the aforesaid two duties that the fate of the accused on the one hand and that of the prosecution on the other depends, and in a given case, any slip either at the end of the Investigating Agency while seizing and sealing the sample or at the end of public Analyst while receiving and analysing the same is committed, the same can prove fatal to the prosecution. Further, the Public Analyst cannot afford to forget that he was sending his opinion report to be used in a criminal trial which brooks no negligence or doubt ! Any remissness, therefore, on the part of Public Analyst in discharge of the aforesaid duties, like nacked electric wire permits no mistake to prove fatal ! He should also further know that his opinion is admissible merely on the ground that he being an expert. In other words, merely because by virtue of Section 293 of the Code, his report could be admitted in evidence and exhibited without giving evidence before the Court that by itself does not mean that the same is to be accepted straightway as a conclusive proof of evidence against the accused, more particularly when it does not contain even a grain of material indicating on what scientific tests his opinion was arrived at. Before the evidence of Public Analyst can be safely accepted and relied upon to base the order of conviction and sentence, the Court must have an opportunity of its own to independently assess and appreciate the same on the basis of scientific tests, etc. Instead, if the Court is to surrender to any bare opinion of the Public Analyst, that can amount to abdication of its judicial function, relegating itself to mechanically record the order of conviction and sentence without doing anything else ! The view that we are taking is duly supported by the observations made by Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati, as he then was, in case of Suleman Usman Memon v. State of Gujarat, reported in , wherein at page No. 410, it has been o as under:

11. Incidentally, it is also further required to be observed that in all cases under the Narcotics Act when Investigating Agency depatches the muddamal articles to Forensic Science Laboratory for obtaining its report, in its forwarding letter the name of muddamal sample is also described. For example, in the present case, muddamal was named as 'Charas'. In our opinion this practice of naming or describing the muddamal substance in advance, as far as possible, should be refrained from. The reason is that these days, the office of Public Analyst is already over-burdened with number of muddamal articles to be analysed and what ought we know that in absence of sufficient staff, reeling under the acute pressure, coupled with lack of sense of duty, with a view to have sigh of relief from pilled-up work, it may mechanically report back that the sample analysed was the same as named or as described in the forwarding letter ! This may not happen in all cases, but by chance if the said human failing gives way, in a given case, it can play havoc with the cause of justice. We do not for a minute indeed want to lay down the law that if the Investigating Agency while forwarding the sample to F.S.L. for analysis names the muddamal the same would be fatal to the prosecution case. What we say is what the Investigating Agency is required to take special care with a view to see that Public Analyst may not mechanically prepare report by naming the substance as the one named in the forwarding letter.