IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Petition No.370 of 2019 
(Against judgment dated 11.03.2019 of the 
Lahore High Court Multan Bench passed in 
Crl. Appeal No.21/2018) 
 
 
Mushtaq Ahmad 
  
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State & another 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, ASC 
  
  
For the State 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffar,  
 
Additional 
Prosecutor 
General, 
Punjab. 
  
 
 
Date of hearing: 
09.1.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
           Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Mushtaq Ahmed, 
petitioner herein, surprised on a tip off by a police contingent,  
within the remit of Police Station Mitroo District Vehari was 
found in possession of 1460 grams of Charas along with weighing 
apparatus with some amount; indicted before a learned 
Additional Sessions Judge at Mailsi, he was returned a guilty 
verdict; convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic 
Substances Act, 1997, he was sentenced to four years R.I. with 
fine, 
under-trial 
period 
inclusive, 
vide 
judgment 
dated 
22.12.2017, upheld by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High 
Court at Multan vide impugned judgment dated 11.03.2018, 
vires whereof are being assailed on a variety of grounds, allegedly 
a flawed forensic report, being most prominent. The learned Law 
Officer has, contrarily, defended the impugned judgment.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
Criminal Petition No.370 of 2019 
 
2
3. 
 
Prosecution case is hinged upon the statements of 
Aamir Masood, TSI (PW-2) and Abid Hussain, 336-C (PW-3); 
being officials of the Republic, they do not seem to have an axe to 
grind against the petitioner, intercepted at a public place during 
routine search. Contraband, considerable in quantity, cannot be 
possibly foisted to fabricate a fake charge, that too, without any 
apparent reason; while furnishing evidence, both the witnesses 
remained throughout consistent and confidence inspiring and as 
such can be relied upon without a demur. Argument that forensic 
report sans ‘protocol’ as mandatorily required in the case of State 
Vs. Imam Bukhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) is beside the point and so 
is reference to Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substance (Govt. 
Analysis) Rules, 2001, for the convenience of reference 
reproduced below:- 
 
“Report of result of test or analysis.—After 
test or analysis the result thereof together 
with full protocols of the test applied, shall be 
signed 
in 
quadruplicate 
and 
supplied 
forthwith to the sender as specified in  
Form-II.” 
 
The above requires reference to the test applied for analysis, 
specifically mentioned in Form-II thereof. We have perused the 
forensic 
report, 
relied 
upon 
by 
the 
prosecution, 
which 
substantially meets the legal requirements, in the following 
terms:- 
“Test Performed on Received Item(s) of Evidence 
 
1. Analytical Balance was used for weighing. 
2. Chemical Spot Tests 
were used for 
Presumptive Testing. 
3. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry 
was used for confirmation. 
 
 
 
Results and Conclusions 
 
 
 
Item # 01   72.87 gram(s) of blackish brown 
resinous material in sealed parcel contains 
Charas.” 
 
Details mentioned in the forensic report regarding procedure/ 
tests applied do not fall short of ‘protocol’  as insisted by this 
Criminal Petition No.370 of 2019 
 
3
Court in the supra case. According to the Oxford English 
Dictionary, 6th Edition, the expression ‘protocol’ in relation to a 
forensic test means:-  
“A 
formal 
or 
official 
statement 
of 
a 
transaction or proceeding; spec. a record of 
(esp. scientific) experimental observations”.   
  
Forensic report (Ex.PE) realistically qualifies to meet the required 
standards. Even otherwise, the Rule ibid, being directory in 
nature, does not preclude an accused to summon the Expert so 
as to solicit specific details, if any, required by him to vindicate 
his position. Onus cast upon the prosecution to drive home a 
criminal charge has to be weighed in the scales of rationality; it 
cannot be required to satisfy adversarial positions farfetched and 
artificial in nature, rooted into bald denials, clamoured loudly. 
Findings concurrently arrived by the Courts below, being well 
within the remit of law, do not call for interference. Petition fails. 
Leave declined.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad  
9th January, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
