Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No.1229 of 1980, decided on 4th January, 1982.

---Ss.23(1)(a) & 27(2)(b),(4)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.177 & 179--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Jurisdiction of Drugs Tribunal--Sub-standard drugs manufactured at 'L', sold at 'L' and thereafter sold within territorial jurisdiction of Drugs Court at 'K'--Consequences of manufacturing sub-standard drugs at place other than the place of sale of such drugs--Drugs Tribunal at 'K', held, would have jurisdiction to try offences under Drugs Act and no exception could be taken to impugned order passed by Tribunal at 'K'.

Raja Qureshi for Petitioners.

Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents.

--This petition is directed against an order dated, 7th January, 1980 passed by the Chairman of the Drug Court of Sind at Karachi in case No.6/79 dismissing the present petitioner, application for the dismissal of the complaint under Ss.23(1)(a)(v) and 27(2)(b) r/w. S.27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976 filed by the Inspector of Drug against the petitioners.

2. In support of the above petition Mr. Raja Qureshi has relied upon 5.177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that every offence shall ordinarily be tried by a court within the local limits in whose jurisdiction it was committed. It has been vehemently contended by him that since the alleged manufacturing of sub-standard drugs had taken place at Lahore and as the present petition or had sold the alleged aforesaid sub-standard drugs to M/s. Khalid Mealcine in Lahore, who in turn sold the same to a party at Sukkur, with no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the cause of actic accrued within the jurisdiction of Drug Tribunal for Sind at Karachi.

On the other hand, Mr. Ibrahim Memon, learned Additional Advocate-General contends that the alleged offence can be tried by both the tribunals, i.e. Drug Tribunal at Lahore as well as Drug Tribunal at Karachi. Reliance has been placed on S.179 of the Cr.P.C. which lays down that when a person has caused the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done, and of any consequence, which has caused such offence may be inquired into or be tried by a Court within the local limits, or whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done or any such consequence has ensured.

3. There cannot be any denial that the consequence of manufacturing sub-standard drugs will ensue at a place where they; are to be sold. If the drugs were imported for sale within the; territorial jurisdiction of the Drug Court for Sind at Karachi the alleged offence for the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Drugs Act, 1976 referred to hereinabove, can be tried by the Drug Tribunal for Sind at Karachi. In our view the learned Tribunal has taken correct view and no exception can be taken to the impugned However, Mr. Raja Qureshi has referred to a copy of 4th January, 1978 passed by the Drug Court (for Punjab NWFP) at Lahore in the case of State v. M/s. Spencer and Co. Chairman (in case No.Jud. 48/DC/LHR/77), in which the learned Court had taken the view that the offence, if any committed by H.B. Shaikh, I General Manager of Abbott Laboratory (Pak.) Ltd. Karachi was committed not at Gujranwala but at Karachi. But it seems that the attention of the Drug Court was not invited to the provisions of 5.179 of the Cr.PC and, therefore, the above order cannot be said to have been passed after referring to the relevant provision of law. Even otherwise, Mr. Raja Qureshi has fairly conceded that we order of the Drug Court at Lahore has no binding force on this Division Bench.

4. For the above reasons we dismiss the above petition, but there will be no order as to cost's. However, it will be open to the petitioners to apply to the Drug Court for the exemption for personal appearance for sufficient reasons. .

S.A./M-155/K Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

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