23. Import, manufacture and sale of drugs.--(1) No person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf--

(a) export, import or manufacture for sale or sell:

(i) any spurious drug;

(ii) any "initiation product";

(iii) any misbranded drug;

(iv) any adulterated drug;

(v) any substandard drug;

(vi) any drug after its expiry date;

(vii) any drug which is not registered or is not in accordance with the conditions of registration;

(viii) any drug which, by means of any statement, design or device accompanying it or by any other means, purports or claims to cure or mitigate any such disease or ailment, or to have any such other effect, as may be prescribed;

(ix) any drug if it is dangerous to health when used in the dosage or with the frequency, or, for the duration specified, recommended or suggested in the labelling thereof; or

(x) any drug in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule;

(b) manufacture for sale any drug except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued under this Act;

(c) sell any drug except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued under this Act;

(d) import or export any drug the import or export of which is prohibited by or under this Act;

(e) import or export any drug for the import or export of which a licence is required, except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, such licence;

(f) supply an incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, when required to furnish any information under this Act, or the rules;

(g) peddle, hawk or offer for sale any drug is a park or public street or on a highway, footpath or public transport or conveyance;

(h) import, manufacture for sale, or sell any substance, or mixture of substances, which is not a drug but is presented in a form or manner which is intended or likely to cause the public to believe it to be a drug;

(i) sell any drug without having a warranty in the prescribed form bearing the name and batch number of the drug issued,--

(i) in the case of drug manufactured in Pakistan, by the manufacturer holding a valid licence to manufacture drugs and permission to manufacture that drug or by his authorised agent ;

(ii) in the case of an imported drug, by the manufacturer or importer of that drug or, if the drug is imported through an indenter by such indenter;

(j) apply an incorrect batch number to a drug; and

(k) sell or import a drug above the maximum price fixed under this Act on which the drug shall be sold or imported.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to the manufacture or subject to prescribed conditions, of small quantities or any drug for the purpose of clinical trial examination, test, analysis or personal use.

COMMENTARY

Legislature in its wisdom has restricted export, import or manufacture for sale or selling any spurious drug. Mere possession of a spurious drug has not been made punishable u/S. 27 of Drugs Act. Sentence for offence u/S. 27 is three years R.I. which falls outside prohibitory clause of S. 497 Cr.P.C. Petitioner was behind the bars since he had arrested. Keeping him behind the bars, when even commencement of trial is not insight, will not serve ends of justice. PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 336.

Drug Court's refusal to grant relief to petitioner under S. 265-K Cr.P.C. not based on valid ground. No possibility of conviction existed. Proceedings of trial Court appear to be futile exercise order of the trial Court set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge. PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 45.

Questions having no nexus with the decision of bail matter could not be dilated upon at such stage as the same could be conveniently agitated during trial. Accused was the owner of Messrs Multi-Pharma (Pvt.) Limited and was apprehended at the spot in manufacturing process and putting false labels on Norgesic Injections. Huge quantity of Norgesic Injections without labels alongwith packing material was also recovered from the spot. Prima facie, a case against the accused was made out. Offence alleged against the accused, no doubt, did not fall within the purview of S.497(1), Cr.P.C., but on this score alone concession of bail could not be claimed as a matter of right in view of the nature of the offence and its harmful impact on the society as a whole. Impugned order refusing bail to accused was in accordance with the settled norms of justice and being well-based did not warrant interference. Leave to appeal was declined to accused in circumstances. 2004 SCMR 319.

Chairman and two Members of the Drug Court were present at the time of framing the charge and recording the confession of the accused. Non-signing of the impugned judgment by the second Member, however, did not make the confession of accused illegal which at the most was an irregularity curable under S.537, Cr.P.C.. No prejudice even had been caused to the accused by the non-signing of the judgment by the second Member of the Drug Court. Admission of accusation by the accused having been made in clear words and recorded in their own words, S. 243, Cr. P. C. or S. 265 (e), Cr. P. C. was not violated by the Trial Court. Accused having confessed the guilt were debarred under S.412, Cr.P.C. to challenge the conviction and sentence by filing the appeal. Accused could only challenge the extent or legality of the sentence which they did not do. Appeal was dismissed accordingly. 2003 YLR 350.

Accused who was in jail ever since his arrest, was stated to be a government servant. Offence with which accused had been charged, was not punishable with imprisonment for more than 10 years. Case being of further inquiry into guilt of accused within purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., he was granted bail. 2006 MLD 339

Whether F.I.R. can be lodged under Drugs Act without prior permission of Quality Control Board. It is condition precedent under relevant provision of Drugs Act, 1976 and Rule-4 of Drugs Rules that criminal case under section 23/27 of Drugs Act cannot be registered without prior permission of Quality Control Board set up under section-11 of Act. In absence of permission from competent authority proceedings suffer from coram non judice, based on malafide and without lawful authority. Petition accepted and F.I.R. quashed. PLJ 1997 Lahore 1378 = 1998 PCr.LJ 181.

Refusal of authority to permit shifting of Laboratory to new premises. Licence granted to petitioner in 1974 and revalidated under Drugs Act, 1976 was being renewed from time to time. Authority after amendment introduced on 31-5-1983 in para. 2(k) of Schedule to Drugs (Licensing, Registering and Advertising) Rules, 1976 , directed petitioner to shift laboratory from residential area to a proper area. Petitioner in pursuance of such direction purchased plot, constructed new building and applied for to permit to shift laboratory to new premises. Authority refused permission on the ground that size of plot was less than 2000 square yards being a condition laid down under such Schedule, as amended on 15-5-1998. Contention of petitioner was that several other laboratories were being allowed to continue on plots less than such size. Validity. Respondent had not shown any reason as to why petitioner was being discriminated against--Respondent could not insist upon performance of a condition introduced in May, 1995. Nothing was on record to show that petitioner had not completed new construction before introduction of such condition. High Court accepted Constitutional petition and declared impugned order to be without lawful authority. 2004 MLD 773.

Seizure of drugs from the shop of accused persons which were misbranded, unregistered and without warranty. Accused had confessed their guilt before the Trial Court and their statements in that regard were also recorded. Trial Court had proceeded to convict the absconder/accused persons and sentenced them in accordance with law. Neither the accused persons nor the counsel appeared at the time of hearing of the main appeal and the High Court, after hearing the law officer, dismissed the appeal maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded to the absconding accused persons. Trial Court had already shown leniency in the matter of sentence. Judgment of the High Court was well-reasoned and did not suffer. from any legal or factual infirmity. No substantial question of law of public importance was involved in the case. Petition for leave to appeal against judgment of the High Court was dismissed in circumstances. 2002 SCMR 1452.

Offence alleged to have been committed by accused being not punishable with ten years or more, did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. Accused was behind the bars for a sufficient long time and his further detention was not likely to serve any useful purpose .to the prosecution. Trial had not commenced and it was likely to take a long time. Accused could not be kept for indefinite period in jail on whim or caprice of the prosecution. No likelihood of accused's jumping bail in any manner existed. Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. 2002 MLD 1167.

Criminal case under S. 23/37 of the Drugs Act, 1976 could not be registered by the Drug Inspector without the prior permission of the Quality Control Board set up under S. 11 of the Drugs Act, 1976. 1998 PCr.LJ 181.

Accused owner of manufacturing process apprehended at spot manufacturing process and putting false labour, attributed with recovery of huge quantity of spurious injunctions, prima facie was made out against him. NLR 2003 Cr. (SC) 502.

Chairman and two members present at the time of framing of charge and recording confession. Non-signing of impugned judgment by second member of not making confession illegal. No prejudice having been caused to the accused by non-signing of the judgment by second member of Drug Court. 2003 YLR 350.

Revisional jurisdiction not conferred upon the High Court by Drugs Act, 1976, yet High Court can exercise its revisional power u/Ss. 435 and 439 and interfere to the extent of examining the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded and passed as to regularity of proceeding pending before the Drug Court. 2003 YLR 350.