Learned counsel for the appellant observed that the substance was tested by PW2, an exhibit keeper and not by an expert as required by law. Reference was made to Exhibit A. Azu v State (1993) 6 NWLR (Part 299) page 303. He submitted that evidence of PW2 is not admissible as evidence of an expert because he failed to state in his evidence in Chief his qualifications and years of experience. He further observed that PW2 said that he sent 2 grams of the substance for laboratory analysis in Lagos, but that it was 5 grams that was shown on the Drug analysis report and that it took four years for the report to be returned. He argued that it is doubtful if Exhibit E is the result of the analysis of Exhibit D1 - D2 contending that the doubt ought to be resolved in favour of the appellant. Reference was made to Bozin v State (1985) 2 NWLR (Part 8) page 465 Concluding he submitted that the prosecution failed to comply with the provisions of Sections 43 and 65 of the evidence Act, contending that the prosecution also failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the respondent observed that PW1 and PW2 gave direct positive account of the arrest of the appellant with 26kg of Indian hemp along Bodinga Sokoto Road on the 17th of November 2000. Relying on Exhibits A, B, C, D1-D12, E and E2 he submitted that the prosecution proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He further observed that the Court of Appeal was correct to agree with the trial court. Reliance was placed on Uda v The State (2006) 15 NWLR (part 1061) page 199; Obiakor v The State (2002) 10 NWLR (Part 775) page 612. He urged this court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction of the appellant. The judgments of the courts below are on facts, and the facts are that Exhibits D1 - D12, Indian hemp or Cannabis Sativa was found in possession of the appellant. Before addressing the issues in this appeal, I shall make some observations on the procedure for arrest and prosecution of a drug suspect. Put briefly: 1. The suspect is arrested on reasonable suspicion of being in possession of drugs. 2. The authorities take possession of the substance suspected to be drugs in the presence of the suspect and weigh it. 3. A preliminary test mayor may not be done depending on the circumstances, but if done it is desirable it is done in the presence of the suspect. 4. Relevant papers, to wit: Certificate of test analysis (if preliminary test is done) packing of substance/drugs forms are filled by the arresting authorities and signed by the suspect. 5. All the substance recovered, or a reasonable quantity is sent to the laboratory for expert analysis. 6. The laboratory issues a report which may be positive or negative. It is that report that the prosecution acts on to prove its case against the suspect or allow him to go home if the report is negative for drugs. 7. An expert from the laboratory that conducted the test testifies, in court, and in his evidence in Chief he should state his qualification and experience before he proceeds to give evidence on his report. Depending on the circumstances of the case, failure to comply with this laid down procedure may not lead to miscarriage of justice or vitiate the conviction of the suspect but it is desirable that there is compliance. The appellant was charged with being in possession of Indian hemp punishable under Section 10 H of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (Amendment Act) No 15 of 1992. To succeed, the prosecution must prove each of the following beyond reasonable doubt. 1. that the substance is Indian Hemp. 2. that the substance was in possession of the appellant. 3. that the substance was in the appellants possession to his knowledge and without lawful authority. In Miller v Minster of Pensions (1947) 2 All E.R. page 372, it was stated by Denning. J (as he then was) “That proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted of fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence “of course it is possible, but not in the least probable” the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt but nothing short of that will suffice.” See also Lori v State (1980) 8 -11 SC page 81; Section 138 (1) of the Evidence Act. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all about, or shadow of doubt. It simply means the prosecution establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence.