Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 1977, decided on 9th February; 1981.

-- Ss. 30 & 17-Evidence, appreciation of-Record showing no order of appointment of Drugs Inspector having been produced before trial-Court at all and Notification issued in this behalf not indeed a notification as stipulated by S. 17 of Act-Since no prosecution can be instituted except by a properly appointed Drugs Inspector, con viction and sentence awarded to appellant, set aside, in circum stances.

Sh. Ziaullah for Appellant.

Shafiqul Islam for the State.

Dates of hearing : 5th and 6th October, 1980.

-This appeal is directed against the order, dated 31st May, 1977 of the Drug Courl, Punjab & N.-W.F.P whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 27 (4) of the Drugs Act, 1976. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in this case prosecution was instituted in complete disregard of the pro visions of section 30 of the Act by a person who was not an inspector within the meaning of section I7"of the .Act inasmuch as the prosecution failed to show-

(a) that the employee of the department who launched the prosecution had been appointed as an Inspector ;

(b) that any particular area had been assigned to him ;

(r) that any Notification had been issued appointing him and assigning any area to him ; and

(d) that the Notification had been published in the official Gazette.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the State asserts that the official concerned with the institution of this case, was in fact the Drugs Inspector having been properly appointed as such and has been eversince exercising the powers of Drugs Inspector to the knowledge of the appellant.

3. Apart from the question .as to whether the omission to notify the appointment of the Inspector in the official Gazette detracts from his authority to function under the Drugs Act, which may be dealt with in an appropriate case in future, the record shows that no order of appointment has been produced at all in this case. There are only two notifications on record : one indicating assumption of the office off Inspector by Mr. Ghulam Nabi P. W. (who launched this case as a Drugs Inspector) in 1969 in the Provincial Health Directorate, Quetta and the A other showing that he took over as Drugs Inspector, Lahore Division on the fore-noon of 14th May, 1976. Neither notification is indeed a notification of appointment stipulated by section 17 of the Act.

4. Section 30 of the Act is clear in its terms. No prosecution can be instituted except by a properly appointed Drugs Inspector. Since there is a legal defect in the institution of this case it is not possible to maintain the conviction of the appellant or the sentence awarded him. The appeal is, therefore, accepted and by setting aside the con viction and sentence under appeal, the appellant is acquited.

Appeal allowed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.