MUHAMMAD JAMIL versus THE STATE THROUGH PROVINCIAL DRUG INSPECTOR, QUETTA
Sections 19, 22 (2), 23 (i) (a) (iv) (v) and 27 (4) (6) Drugs (Federal Inspector, Federal Drug Laboratory, Federal Government Analyst) Rules, 1976, R 16 Criminal Procedure Code (V9 of 1898), Sections 571A, 249A & 265K Announced in Request for Drug Laboratory after Complaint / Procedure Prevention, Testing and Analysis of Supplied and Supplied Inaccurate and Defective Drugs It has been reported that the drug manufactured at the company is a false brand and defective. And as a result, the board approved the lawsuit against the company, without prosecuting the company, two employees of the company, namely, the Quality Control Charge and the warrant work, were filed by the applicants under Section 249. The petition filed under A & 265 K, CRPC, was dismissed, the applicants filed an application under section 616161A, CCPC to terminate the proceedings. Without legal action against the company, employees of the company cannot be held liable for any offense under the Drugs Act, 1976, which includes section 22 (3) of the Drugs Act. The 1976 government analyst, after testing and analyzing the drug samples within sixty days, will submit a report, in the present case, stating that nine months and four violate section 22 (2). The report is submitted the day after. Under the Drugs Act 1976, no reason was given to the drug inspector in writing by the analyst, nor was any such reason confirmed by the provincial council. It was facilitated in a particular way, it had to be done that way and, if not, in that way
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
