Doubles against Sections 403 and 265 Drug Act (XXXI of 1976), Sections 42, 11, 23, 27, 5, 7 and 41 of the Drugs (Licensing, Registration and Advertising) Rules, 1976, R12 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 13 The defendant was accused of possessing sub-standard medicines for sale purposes. The accused admitted that the Provincial Quality Control Board had imposed a fine on him and recommended suspending the pharmaceutical registration certificate and could not be targeted twice. In the same offense, the accused moved the plea for his acquittal but was rejected by the trial court. The accused was not tried by a court of law for the offense of possessing and selling substandard drugs and was charged only in the complaint. There was still evidence to be recorded, and the final rule on whether to be evil or to be punished was not yet known, but the principle of double jeopardy, in the circumstances, cannot be said in this case. The order passed in connection with the cancellation or suspension of drugs registered under Section 42 of the Drugs Act, 1976 was a governing order and the suspension of registration would result in acquittal or punishment of the culprits as they proved to be a crime. Is not equivalent to The charge of double jeopardy could not be applied by a drug court to an accused person and suspend his license under section 41 of the Penalty under Section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976. The Drugs Act, 1976, was penalized under the Central Licensing Board's administrative domain and was said to have the authority to take action against which the amendment was excluded.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
