Release of accused

2025 PCrLJ 700 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), Ss. 23, 27 & 30Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act (XXI of 2012), Ss.27, 29 & Schedule-IVPunjab Drugs Rules, 2007, R.5(3)Spurious drugs, selling ofRelease of accusedQuashing of FIRCognizance of offenceProcedureWords "shall examine" and "shall issue a show cause notice"

Accused was arrested for selling varieties of therapeutic goods including allopathic drugs which were either unregistered, suspected to be spurious, lacked essential manufacturing and enlistment details or were without warranty

Accused sought bail after arrest on the plea that FIR was registered without following the prescribed procedure

Validity

In R.5(3) of Punjab Drugs Rules, 2007, use of word "shall" in phrases like "shall examine" and "shall issue a show cause notice" suggested that the provision was mandatory, requiring strict adherence

Although R.5 of Punjab Drugs Rules, 2007 does not explicitly outline penalties for non-compliance, its primary purpose is to protect individual rights by ensuring procedural fairness through issuance of show cause notice and opportunity to be heard

Failure to comply with R.5 of Punjab Drugs Rules, 2007 render any action taken as invalid

Order in the nature of writ of certiorari and mandamus is to foster justice and correct a wrong

Courts of law are not supposed to perpetuate what is unjust and unfair, instead they should explore ways and means to undo what was unjust and inequitable

High Court directed the authorities to release the petitioner and quashed the FIR

High Court directed the authorities to place the case before District Quality Control Board for de novo proceedings after issuing show cause notice under R.5(3) of Punjab Drugs Rules, 2007, to petitioner and affording him an opportunity of hearing

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2021 YLRN 64 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 9(a)(ix)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionContractual liabilitySettlement with National Accountability Bureau (NAB)Release of accused

Company of petitioners entered into an agreement with respondents for developing a Private Housing Scheme but the project could not be completed

National Accountability Bureau initiated criminal investigation and arrested petitioners

Petitioners, during custody, submitted their affidavits to settle payments of claimants

Validity

High Court had tried to strike balance between company of petitioners and respondent and NAB with paramount consideration of attempting to safe guard interest of allottees

High Court directed Chairman NAB to pend any inquiry/investigation into the matter whilst petitioners and respondent would give effect to their obligations and responsibilities under their respective affidavits/compromise agreements, whereby allottees would be refunded their monies in full and all other liabilities of the project were to be settled

High Court directed Chairman NAB to supervise and facilitate the company and respondent in giving effect to their respective affidavits/settlements agreements with a view to safe guarding interests of allottees and ensuring that all allottees were repaid in full and other liabilities of the project were repaid within the shortest period of time

High Court directed Prison authorities to release petitioners from custody so that their affidavits/settlement agreements could be given effect to

Petitioners were released, in circumstances.

2015 PCrLJ 78 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 169Deficient evidenceRelease of accused

Magistrate was not bound by the police report submitted under S. 169, Cr.P.C., however, he was supposed to give full application of mind and he had to act fairly, justly and judiciously and was to furnish reasonable grounds for 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing' with the Investigation Officer.