[Section 510, Cr.P.C.]
Report not admissible. The report would not be admissible in evidence if it is not signed by the chemical examiner or the assistant chemical examiner appointed by the Government (DB) 50 Cr.LJ 1011 Muhammad Shafi v. Crown. (DB) PLD 1949 Lah. 175.
Report of Chemical Examiner not signed by him but by his successor in office. Held, is not admissible in evidence. (DB) PLD 1977 Kar. 1019 Gul.
Chemical Examiner's report signed by his assistant and not by him, held is not admissible in evidence. PLJ 1984 FSC 84 Shafa Ullah.
Original copy not produced, but another copy attested by successor chemical examiner produced in Court. Held, the report was not admissible in evidence. PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Kar.) 40 Gul.
Attested copy of Chemical Examiner's Report is not admissible in evidence. PLJ 1984 FSC 28. Muhammad Yameen. PLJ 1987 FSC 28 Muhammad Yameen. PLJ 1984 FSC 84 = PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Kar.) 40 relied.
Original report of Chemical Examiner not produced, held, would not affect the prosecution case when no objection taken at trial. 1988 SCMR 1899 Nadir Khan.
Inspector of explosives declared chemical examiner to Government. His report is admissible under section 510, Cr.P.C. PLD 1959 Pesh. 176 Muhammad Ashraf.
Inspector of explosives or Mint Master is not included in the term "Chemical Examiner". They must be examined as witnesses. 51 Cr.LJ 717 Zamir Hussain v. Crown PLD 1949 Lah. 179 See PLD 1959 Pesh. 176 Contra.
Government Excise Analyst does not come within the purview of section 510, Cr.P.C. 30 Bom. LR 646 Bansi Lal.
Municipal Analyst. Report by a municipal analyst is not within the scope of section 510, Cr.P.C. AIR 1943 Bom. 445 Suleman Shamji.
Intoxicant recovered but sample not sent to chemical examiner for analysis mere opinion of the Excise Inspector does not prove the prosecution case. PLJ 1985 FSC 30 Shamman.
Certificate of Excise Officer stating the material to be charas; cannot be relied upon as Excise Officer is not an expert. PLJ 1981 Cr.C. (Kar.) 294 Suleman.
Tender of report. The report of chemical examiner must be tendered in evidence and used as such, so that the accused may have a chance of questioning it. 26 Cr.LJ 200 Wali Muhammad.
Contents of report. In a case of murder by poison it is not enough for the chemical examiner to merely state his opinion that arsenic was detected. He must state the grounds by which he arrives on that opinion. It is extremely desirable that his report should be full and complete and take the place of evidence which he would give if he were called to the Court as a witness 34 Cr.LJ 754 Gajrani.
Not necessary to take samples from each bag; 49 bags of narcotics were recovered. 1988 SCMR 1899 Nadir Khan.
Value of the report. Section 510 does not say anything as to the weight to be attached to the chemical examiner's report. No person, therefore should be put in peril of capital, or any punishment on a written report not given on oath and untested by cross-examination. To accept such a report whatever it may contain: as proof of death by arsenic poisoning or of any thing appears to be an impossible proposition in Law. Whenever a report is received from a chemical examiner containing a quantitative analysis, it should be shown to the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem examination so that he will be in a position to state what are the medico-legal inferences to be drawn from the report. AIR 1939 Lah. 149. Ujagar Singh v. Crown. ILR 20 Lah. 206 (DB). The Chemical Examiner was called and examined by the High Court, Lahore and he stated that blood stains on nail parings had no medico-legal value and that it was most unlikely to detect blood stains after 27 days. Also see 35 Cr.LJ 280 Happu (DB) PLD 1958 Dac. 1 Mumtaj-ud-Din Khan.
Case turning entirely on Chemical Examiner's Report. It is desirable that the Chemical Analyser should be examined in support of his report and the accused given an opportunity to cross-examine him when the guilt or innocence of the accused turns entirely on Chemical Examiner's report. AIR 1940 Bom. 321 Behram Sheriar Irani v. Emp.
Report of analyst silent about full protocols, held of no consequence. (DB) 1981 P.Cr.LJ 2007. Ata-ur-Rehman.
Report of Chemical Examiner not relied upon when the items were not secured by a recovery memo nor proper receipt of the items by the chemical examiner produced. PLD 1984 FSC 210 Karim Bux.
Chemical Examiner's positive report not relied upon when recovery witnesses stated that the weapons recovered were not stained with blood. NLR 1988 Cr. 654 Dongirio etc.
No reason given by Chemical Examiner for holding the sample sent to him as charas. Held, conviction cannot be based on report not giving reasons in support of its opinion. PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Lah.) 224. Khalid Sultan.
Chemical Examiner not giving reasons in support of his opinion, whether the substance was charas. Held, the opinion is to be accepted as no request was made to summon the Chemical Examiner, when his report was submitted to the Court u/S. 510, Cr.P.C. PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Lah.) 224 distinguished. PLJ 1986 FSC 137. Abdul Hamid.
No reason given by chemical examiner in support of his report, held the report cannot be discharged for this reason. PLJ 1986 FSC 10. Behram Khan.
Chemical Examiner not to be summoned for evidence unless the Court or parties require him to be summoned. When report is meagre, cryptic or reasons for opinion are not given Court has powers to summon the expert. PLJ 1987 SC 481. Sullan.