Find a Lawyer

SHAHID HABIB versus STATE

The Drugs Act 1976 Section 23/27 Punjab Drug Rules, 1988, R4 Criminal Code (v. 1898), Section 555 was charged with action against the accused for which he was subjected to drugs. The warranty contained was not obtained. Disinterested in the nature of the medical store, from where it purchased the accused's prescribed drug according to the approval of the lawsuit by the Provincial Quality Control Board and its explanation was required under R4 of Punjab Drug Rules. , 1988 In the event of a minor and corrective error, the accused may be given a warrant or any other action may be taken as a replacement for the return of batches in which case the accused can only be released as such. As he had. Received a receipt from the aforementioned medical store for a legal purchase, but still did not receive a warranty as required by law which was not complied with, the prosecution against the accused was faulty and further prosecution was void. There was a practice in Karachi that led to the postponement of the pending proceedings against the accused in the Drug Court. advocate for immigration from Takhtbai lawyer