Revision from order of drug Court is competent and is to be heard by a Division Bench of High Court. (DB) PLJ 1986 Cr.C. (Kar.) 601. F. Brummel etc. NLR 1986 Cr. 725.
Prosecution not by Drug Inspector concerned. Accused acquitted. NLR 1982 Cr. 280. Muhammad Anwar v. Sandoz Pakistan.
Inspector not notified within meaning of Sec. 17 of the Drugs Act, prosecution launched by him cannot be sustained. NLR 1984 P.Cr.LJ 492 State v. Zeb Laboratories.
Drug Inspector not properly appointed. Secs. 30 & 17, Drugs Act, since no prosecution can be initiated except by a properly appointed Drug Inspector. Accused acquitted. (DB) 1982 P.Cr.LJ 48. Shaukat Hayat.
No jurisdiction of Punjab & NWFP Drug Court to proceed against the company for an offence of manufacture of substandard drug committed at Karachi. Accused acquitted. NLR 1984 Cr. 62. State v. Geofman Pharmaceutical Karachi.
Offence by company under Drugs Act. Vicarious liability can only be imposed on director and employees of the company when offence be shown to have been committed with their knowledge and consent. (DB) PLJ 1987 Cr.C. (Lah.) 183 Qasim Shah etc.
Whether Managing Director is liable. Managing Director being assisted by various executives and workers, it is difficult to presume that respondent is guilty of manufacture of substandard drugs. Burden of proof lies on prosecution to prove offence having been committed within knowledge and consent of the Director. PLD 1978 SC 193. SP., F.I.A., Lahore v. Akhtar Hussain Bhutta.
Police can investigate cases under Drugs Act, 1976, whether informant is drug inspector or some other person. Search can also be made by police officers. 1979 P.Cr.LJ Note 6 page 4. State v. M.N. Huda = PLJ 1978 Kar. 216.
Investigation by Provincial Police & C.I.A. for offence u/S. 18, Drugs Act is competent, offence being cognizable, however, prosecution cannot be initiated except by Drugs Inspector. Power of police to arrest and register case is not ousted. PLD 1976 Lah. 813. Nawabsons Labs Ltd. v. S.P., F.I.A.
Bottles of medicine containing 55.42% alcohol recovered from a medical store, held no offence under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition E.H.O. made out as the accused was a licensed medical store keeper. FIR quashed PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 1641, Aziz-ud-Din etc.
Stocking of drugs in shops presumption is that the drugs are stocked for sale. Distribution includes dispensing. PLD 1957 Kar. 671. A.A.G. West Pakistan v. Muhammad Musa.
Mens rea not necessary. Not necessary for conviction to prove that the accused had knowledge that to stock drugs for sale without licence is an offence. PLD 1957 Kar. 671. A.A.G. West Pakistan v. Muhammad Musa.
Drug samples sent to Quality Control Board after 4 years for analysis held spuriousness of drug not proved. Accused acquitted. PLD 1997 Pesh 49, Muhammad Ayub.
Samples of alleged spurious drug admittedly not sent to Laboratory for analysis. Held, offence u/S. 23(1) (a) (ii), 27(2) (a) of Drugs Act XXXI 1976 not proved appeal accepted. (D.B.) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Pesh) 114, Muhammad Farooq.
Handbills being advertisement is prohibited & punishable, contention that handbills were for use of shopkeepers only repelled. 1984 P.Cr.LJ 2895. Shafiq Niazi.
Report of analyst not received within 60 days and necessary permission of Quality Control Board for extension of time not obtained. Held, report not conclusive. (DB) 1984 P.Cr.LJ 1580. Muhammad Amin Khan v. Muhammad Siddiq.
Warranty sent to Inspector within 7 days of summons held, dealer is not guilty of offence u/S. 18.1973 P.Cr.LJ 218 Ashfaq Ahmed.
Warranty not signed by petitioner but by another partner of firm. Drugs found substandard. Held, petitioner vicariously liable for offence. 1973 P. Cr.LJ 809. Abdul Hameed v. Ghulam Qadir.
Company itself not impleaded as accused under the Drugs Act but General Manager, Director and Plant Manager etc. were convicted and sentenced u/S. 27 (2) (b). Held, company not having been impleaded as an accused, the employees of the company could not be held to be guilty of the offence. When the company was to be prosecuted it had to be named as such and charge framed against it. The sanction of the Quality Control Board was against the Company and not against its employees. PLD 1991 SC 893. Qasim Shah etc.
Duty of prosecution u/S. 30 of Drugs Act is to produce the relevant notification for appointment of Inspector alongwith complaint. It is not the duty of the accused or the defence counsel to ask the complainant to produce any Notification or to prove his capacity to institute prosecution as required by sec. 30. This requirement of law is to be complied with by the prosecution and if no objection has been raised by the defence at the trial it would not validate the proceedings which otherwise are vitiated for non-compliance of sec. 30. One of the main objects of all these provisions is that there should be strict check on manufacture or sale of spurious drugs and to place limitations on the powers of the Drug Inspector so that under the cloak of his authority he may not create embarrassing situations for manufactures and dealers by transgressing his powers beyond territorial limits assigned to him when the Federal Inspector or a Provincial Inspector as complainant did not hold any of these positions he is not competent to institute the case/prosecution. Entire proceedings are vitiated. PLJ 1996 S.C. 1821, State v. Iqbal Ahmed Khan.
Sec. 30 Drugs Act not complied with. Requirement of law is meant to be complied with by the prosecution and even if no objection is raised by the defence at the trial, it would not validate the proceedings which otherwise stood vitiated for non-compliance with sec. 30 of Drugs Act, 1976. Prosecution could be instituted under the law either by a Federal Drug Inspector or Provincial Drug Inspector and the complainant in the case did not hold any of these positions. As the complainant not being competent to institute proceedings the entire proceedings stood vitiated. Question of whether the prejudice was caused to the accused was not relevant. 1996 SCMR 767, State v. Iqbal Ahmed Khan.
No permission from quality. Control Board before lodging FIR as required under Drugs Act 1976 and Rule 4 of Drugs Rules. Criminal case u/Ss. 23/27 of the Drugs Act cannot be registered without permission from competent authority, that is Quality Control Board set up under Sec. 11 of the Sec. 11 of the Act, FIR quashed in writ jurisdiction. PLJ 1997 Lah. 1378, Agha Nadeem etc. v. SHO Lahari Gate. etc.
Test/analysis report of Govt. Analyst not submitted within 60 days, held, mandatory provision of law having been violated conviction and sentence set aside, under Drugs Act XXXI of 1976. (DB) PLD 1998 Kar. 268, Faqih Alam.