Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2738 2012 SLD 2738 2012 PLD 140
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Quashment Petition No. 3 of 2008, decided on 15th November, 2011. DATE of hearing: 11th October, 2011
NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN AND, JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JJ
Munir Ahmed Bhatti and Nadeem Ahmed Khan for Petitioners. Atiq Ahmed Khan, Addl. P.G. for the State

MUHAMMAD JAMIL and anothers

VS

THE STATE through Provincial Drug Inspector, Quetta

Law:

Section:

(a) Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976)--- ----Ss. 19, 22(2), 23(i)(a)(iv)(v) & 27(4)(6)---Drugs (Federal Inspectors, Federal Drugs Laboratory, Federal Government Analysts) Rules, 1976, R.16---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.561-A, 249-A & 265-K---Manufacturing and supplying misbranded and substandard medicines---Quashing of complaint/proceedings, petition for---Drug Laboratory after test and analysis declared that medicine produced in the company was misbranded and substandard; and subsequently the Board granted sanction for prosecution against the company---Without prosecuting the company, two employees of the company i.e. Quality Control Incharge and Warrantor had been prosecuted---Application filed by the petitioners under Ss.249-A & 265-K, Cr.P.C. for acquittal, having been dismissed, petitioners had filed petition under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings---Validity---Without prosecuting the company, the employees of the company could not be held liable for any offence under the Drugs Act, 1976---According to S.22(3) of the Drugs Act, 1976 the Government Analyst, would submit the report, after test and analysis within sixty days of the receipt of the sample of the drug---In the present case, said report had been submitted after nine months and four days in violation of S.22(2) of the Drugs Act, 1976 and no reason had been communicated to the Drugs Inspector in writing by the Analyst, nor any such reason had been endorsed to the Provincial Quality Control Board---"Communi observantia non est recedendum" i.e. "where a thing was provided to be done in a particular manner, it had to be done in that manner and, if not so done, same would not be lawful"---Mandatory provision of law i.e. S.22(2) of the Drugs Act, 1976 having been violated and on the basis of such delayed test report no conviction could be awarded---Certificate of test/analysis issued by the Central Drug Laboratory, did not show protocol of the test applied, it was a mandatory requirement, that the report of Analyst should be conclusive and must disclose the tests applied under R.16 of the Drugs (Federal Inspectors, Federal Drugs Laboratory, Federal Government Analysts) Rules,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492