1991 P Cr (PLP)
AKMAL RASUL — Petitioner Versus Writ Petition No. 2606 of 1987, decided on 14th April, 1991.
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AKMAL RASUL — Petitioner Versus Writ Petition No. 2606 of 1987, decided on 14th April, 1991. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (AKMAL RASUL — Petitioner Versus Writ Petition No. 2606 of 1987, decided on 14th April, 1991.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Farani for Petitioner.
- Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.G. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Drugs Act (XXX1 of 1976), S.23
Quashing of proceedings-- Accused was proceeded against for manufacturing spurious drugs
Drug Inspector could not identify accused who was admittedly not present at the premises in question when raid was conducted
Two persons, apprehended at the spot exonerated accused and denied having any acquaintance with him or having ever seen him in the premises
Disputed premises was neither owned by accused nor occupied by him
Lease agreement showed that premises was rented out to someone else by the owner
Proceedings were quashed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This is a petition for quashment of case F.I.R. No. 255, dated 8-3-1987 registered at the instance of Rizwan Ashraf, Drug Inspector against the petitioner.
2. The prosecution case is that on the receipt of a secret information that Akmal Rasul and his servants were manufacturing drugs Bungalow No.76, Officers Colony, Street No.2, Lahore Cantt. was raided. Two persons namely, Abdur Rashid and Shakir Ali were caught red-handed while manufacturing Deschians Syrup of Heamoglbine and Alteris Cordiac Medicine. However, Akmal Rasul petitioner managed to slip away.
3. It is contended that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. that spurious drugs in question were being manufactured for sale, that the premises wherefrom the said drugs were allegedly recovered did not belong to the petitioner. He was neither in occupation nor had any connection with it, that Abdur Rashid and Shakir Ali mentioned above have exonerated the petitioner in their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. stating that they had been employed by one Haji Inam Ullah for the purpose and that they did not see the petitioner in the factory on the relevant date. It is next contended that the F.I.R. had been registered for mala fide reasons at the behest of the petitioner's rivals.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was not apprehended or arrested from the premises in question at the time of the raid. The Drug Inspector conceded before this Court on 8-7-1987 that he could not himself identify the petitioner but was told by his servants, namely, Abdur Rashid and Shakir Ali that they were manufacturing the drugs in question at his instance. As already stated above, Abdur Rashid and Shakir Ali have got their statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. denying acquaintance with the petitioner or having ever seen him in the premises in question. House No.76, Officers Colony, Street No.2, Lahore Cantt. was neither owned by the petitioner nor occupied by him. The lease agreement appended with the petition shows that it was owned by one Haji Inam Ullah who had rented out the same to Mian Ghulam Yasin.
5. In the above circumstances, there appears to be absolutely no chance or probability of conviction of the petitioner. Accordingly, I grant the petition and quash the case against him. SA./A-1314/L Petition accepted.