Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLD 650 = 1990 MLD 1524
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 1989, decided on 7th April, 1990.
Presented By: Before Saleem Akhtar and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ
Fazle Ghani Khan for Appellant. K.M. Nadeem A.-A.G. for the State.

ABDULLAH SHAMIM--Appellant

VERSUS

THE STATE--Respondent

Law: Drugs Act, 1976

Section: 3(g)(i)

  Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976)-- ----S.3(g)(i)---If any substance or mixture of substances is exclusively used or prepared for use in accordance with the Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathic or Biochemic system of treatment then (unless such substance is excepted in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed) the same would not be included in the definition of "Drug ".occurring in section 3(g)(i) of the Drugs Act. Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976)-- ----S.3(g)(i),(ii),(iii) & (v)---Any isolated or synthesised substance mentioned as monograph or as a preparation appearing in the several publications referred to in section 3(g)(v) of Drugs Act would by itself constitute a Drug and fall within the fold of the said definition clause irrespective of the fact whether the same is used alone or in combination with any other substance exclusively used in any of the four excepted systems of medicine in question, in the later case if intended to be used for any of the purposes mentioned in sub-clauses (i),(ii) and (iii) of clause (g) of section 3 of Drugs Act---1n such category would fall such isolated or synthesised active constituents as are covered in the publications referred to in section 3(g)(v) of the Act. Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976)--- ----Ss.27(1)(a)(b) & 27 (2)(b)---Appraisal of evidence---It was not proved through qualitative and quantitative analysis of the ingredients in the offending preparation that the active ingredient /constituent Mathyl Salicylate had been used which formed part of the protected pharmacopieas---Analyst's report did not determine the ingredients in the offending preparation quantitatively or even fully---It could not, therefore, be found that accused did not use merely a herbal extract in its natural form for the purposes of his preparation---Offence alleged against accused, held, had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt---Accused was acquitted in circumstances. Fazle Ghani Khan for Appellant. K.M. Nadeem A.-A.G. for the State. Dates of hearing: 21st and 22nd February, 1990. JUDGMENT WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--This appeal, under section 31(7) of the Drugs Act, 1976, emanates from the seizure and sealing of a sample ofโ€ฆ
๐Ÿ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register