Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3453/B of 1986, decided on 21st December 1986.
‑‑S. 497‑‑Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), Ss. 23 & 27‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Bottles taken into possession from factory of accused‑‑Some of bottles labelled as Tincture Aurantii' while others unlabelled‑‑Government Analyst reporting samples, not to be Tincture Aurentii and devoid of drugs and were thus spurious‑‑Accused having licence to manufacture Tincture Aurentii‑‑No allegation against accused offering bottles for sale shown‑‑Question whether bottles were ready for sale or still under manufacturing process, required further inquiry‑‑‑Bail granted in circumstances.
Syed Shakir Ali Rizvi for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 21st December, 1986.
Muhammad Hanif, Muhammad Farooq, Nazir Ahmad, Farzand Ali, Yasin, Muhammad Bashir, Allah Ditta, Nazir Ahmad son of Noor Ahmad, Muhammad Yaqub and Muhammad Shafique petitioners have applied for bail in a case under sections 23/27 of the Drugs Act, 1976 read with sections 3/4 of the Prohibition Order, 1979.
2. The prosecution case is that on 18‑11‑1986 at about 9‑00 p.m. on receipt of a secret information a raid was organised by Rizwan Ashraf, Drug Inspector (complainant) on Home Chemical Industries a Pharmaceutical Factory owned by Muhammad Asif. Muhammad Hanif etc. petitioners were allegedly found present in the factory manufacturing spurious Tincture Aurantii'. 2450 bottles were taken into possession. Some of them were labelled as Tincture Aurantii' while the others were unlabelled. However, they appeared as imitation of Tincture Aurantii'. A Samples from the said bottles were sent for chemical examination and the Government Analyst reported that the samples of the bottles did not contain Tincture Aurantii and were devoid of drugs and hence, were spurious.
After arrest, the petitioners applied for bail to the Drugs Court but they were declined bail on 3‑12‑1986.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that Messrs Home Chemical Industries possessed a licence for the preparation of Tincture Aurantii' which is used for medicinal purposes. It is further stated that the seized bottles were not the finished products but were still under the process of manufacturing and had not been offered for sale to. anybody. It is also stated that complainant for mala fide reasons has given it a name of alcohol whereas neither any such thing was recovered from the factory premises of the petitioners nor was so declared by the Government Analyst. When asked to explain, the complainant (Drug Inspector) stated that if taken in large quantity Tincture Aurantii' may cause intoxication.
4. There is no allegation against the petitioners of offering for sale the said bottles or the contents thereof. Admittedly Messrs Home Chemical Industries had licence to manufacture Tincture Aurantii'. The question as to whether the bottles recovered from the factory premises of the petitioners were ready for sale or were yet under manufacturing process requires further inquiry. The petitioners are no longer required for the purpose of investigation.
Accordingly, I grant the petition and admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Model Town/Duty Magistrate, Lahore.
S.A./M‑95/L Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer