2020 P Cr (PLP)

By means of instant filed in terms of section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.C-48/2018, dated 29.09.2018 offence under sections 23/27 and 28(3) of the Drugs Act, 1976 (amended) registered with Police Station FIA/CCC, Lahore.

2. Prosecution story in brief, as per contents of the crime report, is that on receipt of secret/spy information, the complainant along with other officials of health department and FIA officials conducted raid at Messrs Ahmed Pharmacy and General Store, Queens Road, Lahore. On seeing them the petitioner (proprietor of the pharmacy) made his good escape while the inspection was conducted in the presence of sale-staff of the pharmacy during the course of which spurious drugs, unregistered medicine, drugs without sale purchase record, narcotics/controlled drugs and drugs without warranty were recovered, which were taken seized and Form 5 was prepared at the spot. Hence, this case.

3. While opening his arguments at the outset learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Learned counsel vehemently contends that the FIR was lodged with a delay of eleven days for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. Main crux of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor anything was recovered from his possession. It has been vehemently argued that the petitioner runs his business under a valid license and nothing was recovered from the business premises while the alleged recovery was effected from a residential house. Next contends that there is absolutely no material, available on record to establish that the petitioner was involved in the business of sale/purchase of unregistered/spurious drugs. Learned counsel finally submits that case against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; therefore, he is entitled to the relief sought for.

4. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned Deputy Attorney General that at the time of inspection of the pharmacy/store, huge quantity of unregistered medicine, narcotic/controlled drugs and medicine without warranty were recovered. Main crux of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is habitual offender as earlier in two cases registered under the provisions of sections 23/27 of the Drugs Act, 1976, he was convicted by the court of competent jurisdiction. In such circumstances learned Law Officer submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

5. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned Deputy Attorney General and gone through the record available on file, which reflects that on receipt of spy/secret information the complainant along with other officials of health department and FIA personnel inspected Ahmed Pharmacy and General Store, Shops Nos.3, 6 Queens Road, Lahore in the ownership of the present petitioner. However, on seeing the raiding party, the petitioner slipped away while in the presence of sales-staff employed at the pharmacy, huge quantity of spurious drugs, unregistered medicine, drugs without sale purchase record and drugs without warranty was recovered, which was seized and in this regard Form No.5 was prepared at the spot. During the course of arguments the Court was apprised that manufacturing of one drug was stopped by the company in the year 1992, however, astonishingly that was recovered at the time of inspection of the pharmacy on 18.09.2018.

6. Main crux of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, he is entitled to the relief sought for. However, while going through the record available on file we have observed that the petitioner is previously a convicted person in two cases of similar nature, hence, his case falls within the purview of subsection (3) of section 28 of the Drugs Act (Punjab Amendment), which is reproduced as under for ready reference:- "(3) Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under subsection (4) of section 27 is [convicted for a subsequent] offence under the sub section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. Punjab Amendment "In subsection (3), for the expression "seven years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both", the expression "ten years but which shall not be less than ninety days and with fine which may extend to ten million rupees but which shall not be less than one million rupees." Hence, keeping in view the above provision of law the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold field as case against the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

7. It has been established from the record that the petitioner is a previous convict having been convicted in two criminal cases of similar nature whereas another case is in the pipeline. No doubt the liberty of a person is a precious right but at the same time it is bounden duty of the Superior Courts to come for the rescue of the public-at-large. There are three aspects of the society i.e. law and order situation, education and health, which come within the ambit of foremost duties of the State. Provision of health care to the public is sine-qua of a healthy environment, which is at the verge of collapse due to such like black sheep, who are in continuation of their ill-designs to play with the lives of public-at-large. It has been noticed that such like people are spreading their activities in a manner that the public is suffering because of some most dangerous diseases, which are detrimental to the basic fiber of any society. The petitioner might be one of the glaring example especially when huge quantity of spurious and unregistered drugs have been recovered from him in a row despite of twice being convicted by the court of competent jurisdiction, which reflects his mindset and this mindset has to be curbed/dealt with iron hands.

8. In view of facts and circumstances and the bounden duty of the Court, we are left with no other option except to dismiss the post-arrest bail petition of the petitioner. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings of trial against the petitioner. MQ/M-72/L Bail refused.