PCRLJ 1989

1989 P Cr (PLP)

Messrs SALIMCO LABORATORIES and others Petitioners Versus THE DRUG INSPECTOR,

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 3869 of 1987, decided on 19th September, 1988.
Honorable Judges
Lehrasap Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Lehrasap Khan, J
Parties Messrs SALIMCO LABORATORIES and others Petitioners Versus THE DRUG INSPECTOR,
Primary Law Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Lehrasap Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (Messrs SALIMCO LABORATORIES and others Petitioners Versus THE DRUG INSPECTOR,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976)‑‑

Representation

  • Sh. Ziaullah for Petitioners.
  • Khalil Ramday, Advocate‑General assisted by Ch. Altaf Muhammad Khan, for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑S. 11‑‑No prosecution could be launched without permission of Quality Control Board‑‑Permission for prosecution should not be given by Board in presence of negative report of laboratory. Nazir Hussain Shah, Secretary, Provincial Quality Control Board in person,

Judgment & Decree

and others Respondents Writ Petition No. 3869 of 1987, decided on 19th September, 1988. ‑‑‑S. 11‑‑No prosecution could be launched without permission of Quality Control Board‑‑Permission for prosecution should not be given by Board in presence of negative report of laboratory. Sh. Ziaullah for Petitioners. Khalil Ramday, Advocate‑General assisted by Ch. Altaf Muhammad Khan, for Respondents. Nazir Hussain Shah, Secretary, Provincial Quality Control Board in person, The learned Advocate‑General as also the Secretary provincial Quality Control Board intimate that the samples in question have since been examined by the Appellate Laboratory and as per result of the said laboratory, no objectionable material .has been noticed in the samples. The learned Advocate‑General further submits that no prosecution can be launched without the permission of the Quality Control Board and in view of the report of the Laboratory the requisite permission shall not be given by the Board. In the circumstances, the writ petition has borne fruit and is disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./S‑330/L Order accordingly.