' Through this Intra-Court Appeal, the appellant has called in question order dated 13-3-2011 passed in Writ Petition No,5250 of 2011 by a learned Single Judge in Chambers, whereby the writ petition containing prayer for issuance of a direction to S.H.O.-respondent No,2 to register a criminal case against representatives of Highnoon Laboratories was dismissed.
2. The version of the appellant in brief is that Highnoon Laboratories set up a medical camp at Faisalabad in year 2002 for vaccination of Hepatitis; he in the first instance was injected Heprovac- B followed by second dose of the same vaccination sometimes thereafter; the Intelligence Bureau on complaints, raided the camp and took into possession various medicines; the appellant felt some weakness in his eyesight and the Specialists of the District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad diagnosed that it had been caused due to usage of some medicine; the appellant understood afterwards that the vaccine injected to him was imported by Highnoon Laboratories, which could not stimulate the production of anti-bodies and procure immunity from the above said disease and that the injurious vaccination had damaged his eyesight; he being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No,7967 of 2005, which was dismissed and then he filed an I.C.A., which is still pending adjudication; the appellant lodged a complaint before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was taken up as Human Rights Case No,453-P of 2009 and disposed of on 6-1-2010 with the following observation:- , .States at bar that the drug in question is not being imported or sold by the Company since the year 2006. This statement is not been converted by the petitioner, Muhammad Humayun Khan, as well as the representative of the Ministry of Health, Mr. M. Masood, Deputy Drug Controller, who states that the drug in question has been deregistered. In this view of the matter, there is nothing left to be done in the present case. If the petitioner has any personal grievance, he has remedy available in the civil Court."
' After fetching the aforesaid direction from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant decided to take up the matter on the criminal law side and moved an application for registration of a criminal case before the R.P.O., Faisalabad, but to no avail; it prompted him to approach the learned Ex- Officio Justice of Peace, Faisalabad under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C., but he failed in his attempt; he filed Writ Petition No,5250 of 2011 against the order dated 16-7-2010 passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge in.
Chamber, vide order dated 14-3-2011 with the following observations:-- "3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge/JOP has based his order on judgment dated 6-1-2010 of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in Human Rights Case No,453-P of 2009 whereby it was held that the petitioner has remedy available in the Civil court. The contention of the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge/JOP has failed to appreciate that the civil remedy is distinguished from the remedy on criminal side and both can be availed of at a time.
The contention of the petitioner that he was injected the Vaccination, which was not fit for human use, if proved, would constitute a cause of action for him to claim damages and seek remedy from the civil court. The medicine was imported from China and it is not clear that Messrs Highnoon Laboratories had the knowledge of the deficiency in the medicine. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has dealt with the matter and held that the petitioner may avail of the remedy in the civil court. In these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/JOP was fully justified in turning down the prayer for issuance of direction to respondent No,2 to register the criminal case."
3. After having heard learned counsel for the appellant and considered the matter from all angles, we are of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner in its present form cannot invoke any penal provision of law nor it necessitates the registration of a criminal case as he had been directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan to take recourse to the civil law for redressal of his personal grievance. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the vaccination in question had caused weakening of the eyesight of the appellant is a far-fetched cry as the appellant does not appear to have any evidence, which could render his plea cogent or believable.
The appellant merely relies upon his verbal assertions rather than hinting at some documentary evidence, which may show some nexus between his alleged claim of loss of eyesight and use of vaccination in-question. The impugned order appears to have been passed with sound reasoning and convincing arguments, therefore, it does not call for interference by this Court.
4. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed in limine.