Sections 18 (f) and 24 Punjab Drug Rules, 1988, R9 (1) Removal of negative comments by the court, the present case was filed by a company on the basis of advertising of drugs in various newspapers, trial. The court acquitted the accused after acquitting them. While accepting their pleas under Section 6565K, the PC Trial Court has, in its bad order, stated that the Form 5 listed under Rule 9 (1) of the Punjab Drug Rules 1988 was ready at the time of confiscation. Was not made, so the case was instituted against the accused. The trial court also directed the concerned authorities to take disciplinary action against the drug inspector (applicant) and not to post it in the field, in which he fulfilled his responsibility with good faith and remarks. The litigation was not approved by the trial court; the negative remarks were approved by the trial court for not preparing inventory on Form 5 under the Drugs Act 1976 and section 18 (f) of the Roll. 9 (1) of the Punjab Drug Rules 1988 Although in the present case there was no need for inventory in Form 5, the drug inspector should have reduced the facts to preserve the advertisement in black and white, which would have led to such a failure. Failed to do The drug inspector may have been the result of slow behavior but did not prove that he had behaved maliciously, there was nothing available to the trial court to conclude that the drug inspector was required to blackmail the accused. The source was processed or tainted. The District Quality Board unlawfully approved the prosecution without identifying the Form 5 deficiency, so after the approval of the competent authority
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
