Sections 23, 27 and 34 prohibit the import, manufacture and sale of prohibited drugs by companies. Testimonies of evidence were recovered from the custody of the accused in the premises of the defendant's medical store, drugs that were not public property nor for sale, and the accused failed to produce a receipt or bill for the same dispute. Was. The trial court's finding was invalid. The Correct Investigator / Inspector stated that he recovered medicines from the scene of the property that were for sale (not for sale) and that the inspection was not denied by the accused and It was reported that the accused, the owner and license holder of the underground medical store, knew about the drugs did not challenge the prosecution's action. Prior to filing a complaint directly with the inspector before any forum, the evidence of the prosecution was proved with the help of ocular evidence, as well as evidence of the circumstances, including the report of the Provincial Quality Control Board, He is alleged to have failed to provide drugs and bail for drugs. Revealed that the accused had violated section 23 (1) of the Drugs Act 1976, the accused were fully aware of the sale and sale of the drugs under investigation, and together with them, they committed the crime. Came in the circle of 34 The trial of the Drugs Act 1976 was beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the conviction and punishment of the accused under section 27 (4) of the Drugs Act 1976, appeals were dismissed, in the circumstances n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
