' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.---Through this single order I intend to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.
4108, 4109 and 4111 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all of them.
2. Through these constitutional petitions, Azmatullah, petitioner seeks quashing of F.I.R. No,15 dated 21-1-2008, F.I.R. No,5 dated 15-1-2008 and F.I.R. No, 8 dated 19-1-2008 all registered under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. At Police Station Cantt, Kharian District Gujrat.
3. Briefly the facts leading to the filing of these constitutional petitions are that the complaints got registered the aforesaid F.I.Rs, with the allegations that petitioner has prepared fake warranty of Serzone injections. During the investigation of aforesaid cases, legal opinion was sought by the police from the Inspector Legal who opined that the local police has no jurisdiction to register the aforesaid cases against the petitioner rather a case under section 27(2)(b) of the Drugs Act could have been registered against him. On the basis of the legal opinion, the Investigating Officer submitted cancellation report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kharian who vide his order dated 25-2-2008 disagreed with the cancellation report and directed the police to submit report under section 173, Cr .P.C. By adding section 27(2)(b) of the Drugs Act in the Zimni to the concerned Court within seven days, hence the present constitutional petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations as contained in the aforesaid F.I.Rs, constitute an offence under section 23(1)(i) of the Drugs Act, 1976 which is punishable under section 27(2)(b) of the Act ibid. The Drugs Act, 1976 is a special law and the offences committed under the aforesaid Act exclusively fall within the domain and competence of a Federal Inspector or by a Provincial Inspector under section 30 of the Act ibid. He also submits that under section 30 (2)(a) the offence which has been made out in the F.I.R. Was non-cognizable and under clause (b) of this subsection no Court other than the Drugs Court has been conferred jurisdiction to try an offence punishable under the Drugs Act. He also submits that a case vide F.I.R. No,21 dated 23-2- 2008 on the same allegations has been registered against the petitioner by the Drug Inspector in which the petitioner is facing the trial before the learned Drugs Court, as such, the petitioner cannot be tried twice or thrice for the same offence.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No,3 while opposing the writ petitions submits that the F.I.Rs, have correctly been registered against the petitioner.
6. Learned Assistant Advocate-General when confronted with the aforesaid legal aspect of the case, he could not deviate himself from the afore-referred provisions of law.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the available record.
Undeniably, allegations as contained in the aforesaid F.I.Rs, constitute an offence under section 23(1)(i) of the Drugs Act, 1976 which is punishable under section 27(2)(b) of the Act ibid. The aforesaid provisions of law are reproduced below:-- "23. Import, manufacture and sale of drugs.---(1) No person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf:-- (a).....................................................................
(b).....................................................................
(c)......................................................................
(d).....................................................................
(e)......................................................................
(0.......................................................................
(g)......................................................................
(h).....................................................................
(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 a drug manufactured in Pakistan, by the manufacture holding a valid licence to manufacturer drugs and permission to manufacture that drug or by his authorized 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"
"27. Penalties.---(1) whoever himself or by any other person on his behalf:--
(a) ...............................................................
(b) ...............................................................
(c) ...............................................................
(2) Whoever himself or by any person on his behalf:-- (a)
(b) gives to the, purchaser a false warranty in respect of any drug sold by him that the drug does not in any way contravene the provisions of section 23 and is not able to prove that, when he gave the warranty, he had good and sufficient reason to believe the same to be true; (c)
(d)
(e) ' shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both."
' The allegations contained in the impugned F.I.Rs, constitute the offences which exclusively fall within the domain and competence of Federal Inspector or a Provincial Inspector under section 30(1)(b) and under section 30(2)(b) no Court other than a Drugs Court shall try an offence punishable under the aforesaid provisions of law. From the afore-quoted provisions of law it is crystal clear that no prosecution can be instituted in respect of an offence under the Drugs Act except by the Federal Inspector or a Provincial Inspector and the case was exclusively triable by the Drugs Court, therefore, no Magistrate of Ist or 2nd Class under the Cr.P.C. Was competent to try the case, as such, no order by such Magistrate could be passed authorizing the police authorities to investigate the case. The case as made out in the aforesaid F.I.Rs, is the case of failure of petitioner or provide any genuine warranty for Serozone Injections from the Manufacturer or Warrantor or Authorized Dealer which falls under the Drugs Act and the offence was non-cognizable and the prosecution could be instituted only by Drug Inspector who has lodged F.I.R. No,21 dated 23-2-2008 against the petitioner in which he is facing the trial before the learned Drugs Court, as such, the registration of impugned F.I.Rs, as also the investigation in pursuance thereof being conducted by the police officers are without jurisdiction and legal authority.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that I accept all the three writ petitions, quash the impugned F.I. Rs, registered against the petitioner and declare investigation and further proceedings in pursuance thereof to have been taken without jurisdiction, lawful authority and of no legal effect.
9. Before parting with this order I may observe here that the observations in this order will not affect the proceedings before the learned Drugs Court in any manner arising out of F.I.R. Lodged by the Drug Inspector.