PARKE DAVIS & CO. LTD. versus PROVINCIAL DRUG INSPECTOR
Sections 16, 17, 22, 23, 31 (7A) and 34 are producing poor drug tests Testifying the evidence, the provincial drug inspector inspects the premises of a retailer who runs his business in medicine The drug was taken into custody by the government analyst, the Drug Testing Laboratory and the National Institutes of Health to whom the sample was sent for analysis, describing the drug as "flawed," based on such reports, The inspector filed a complaint in the Drugs Court after obtaining approval from the provincial quality control. After considering the evidence presented by the board trial court, it was concluded that the prosecutor had proved his case that the accused company had been fined Rs 50,000 and the co-accused only 30, 000 was fined, which was prepared by the National Institutes of Health. The person who was able to sign both sample analysis entities, agreed to declare the intoxicant drug, only the appellant / accused was fined and that too amounted to Rs. 50,000. The only director of the insufficient / appellant company was prosecuted for failing to take action against every director. It was mandated by law that it was highly regrettable that unlawful action against every director of the company and not filing an appeal against the company as provided under section 31 (7A) of the Drugs Act 1976, Did not properly reflect the authority's conviction and sentencing sentence. Based on the clear evidence presented by the prosecution, the trial court was retained and Mills
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
