1992 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑‑Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), Ss.ll & 19‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused who was not named in F.I.R. was alleged to have sold spurious drug unauthorisedly through receipt to co‑accused who was not among dealers of disputed drug‑‑‑Accused admittedly had been supplying other medicines to co‑accused, thus it could not be said that receipt definite, related to disputed spurious drug‑‑‑Registration of case against accused, otherwise prima facie, was bad right from inception as provisions of Ss.11 & 19 of Drugs Act, 1976 were not fully complied with in registering case against accused‑‑‑Ad interim bail allowed to accused was confirmed in circumstances. Khalid Mahmood and Sh. Zia Ullah for Petitioner. A.H. Masood for the State. Date of hearing: 18th May, 1991. Muhammad Feroze, Inspector informs that Batch No.93093 manufactured by Medi‑Pharm (Pvt.) Ltd. was supplied to Fazal Din & Sons, their distributor and the said distributor had further supplied the drug to their 46 dealers. The petitioner or for that matter 'Malik Medical Store' were not among those dealers.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that Jamil Anwar, the complainant Drug Inspector had checked Malik Medical Store of Shahid Habib co‑accused, demanded warranty for the alleged spurious drug, the same was not supplied and so F.I.R. was lodged against Shahid Habib on .16‑8‑1990. Even after the registration of the case the warranty was not produced by Shahid Habib. He also pointed out that the petitioner had been supplying other drugs to Malik Medical Store and if in connection with that any receipt was signed that would not connect the petitioner with the sale of the spurious drug of Batch No.93093. He also contended that the Drug Inspector was not competent to lodge the F.I.R. as he should have reported his action under section 11(5)(',) and section 19(6) of the Drugs Act to the Provincial Quality Control Board soliciting further order's as to further course of action. If the Board had not approved the registration of the case, the case could not have been even registered. He also pointed out that the report of the Government Analyst was incomplete as the full protocols were not given as 'required under the Rules. These seem to be prima facie serious considerations.

3. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. He is only tried to be connected with the spurious drug through receipt given to Shahid Habib of Malik Medical Store but the petitioner has been supplying other medicines to the said Store and so it cannot be said that this chit definitely relates to the spurious drug of Batch No.93093. The registration of the case also seems to be prima facie bad right from inception.

4. In the circumstances, reliance has been placed upon Syed Iqbal Hussain and another v. The State N L R 1991 Cr.LJ

115. The bail is, therefore confirmed. The petitioner would join the investigation when required by the police. H.B.T./M‑206/L Bail confirmed.