' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner has assailed the vires of orders dated 14-5-2008 and 4-6- 2008 passed by the learned Drug Court, Multan, in cases titled 'The State v. Hakeem Tehseen Ahmad and another' (Judi. No,627/DCM/07), 'The State v. Hakeem Tehseen Ahmad (Judl.No,628/DCM/07), The State v. Hakeem Tehseen Ahmad and another' (JudI.No,731/DCM/07) and 'The State v. Hakeem Tehseen Ahmad and another (Judl.No,885/DCM/07) under section 27 read with section 24 of the Drugs Act, 1976, whereby the learned trial Court passed adverse remarks against him. The learned trial Court while accepting applications under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
Moved in the above mentioned cases by the accused persons and consequently acquitting them, passed the following remarks:-- "By all means the case is found to have been installed playing a dirty game of blackmailing with mala fides against the accused persons, in which there is no probability of the accused persons being convicted of any offence for the reasons recorded and detailed above. Sequel thereto the petitions of the accused persons under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. In all the four cases, are accepted and the accused persons acquitted in all the four cases."
"A copy of this order be placed in each one of the four cases. Besides, a copy of this order be sent to Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab, under sealed, confidential registered cover for taking disciplinary action against Drug Inspector Muhammad Zubair, who shall also inform this Court about final action taken in this behalf. Meanwhile Mr. Muhammad Zubair be not posted as a Drug Inspector in the field and if posted be retrieved forthwith."
2. The petitioner had submitted the above-mentioned complaints on the basis of advertisements given by Dawakhana Hakeem Tehseen (Pvt.) Limited, Multan and Lahore, in different newspapers of Multan and Lahore. The learned trial. Court held that these advertisements were published from Multan and Lahore so the petitioner had no jurisdiction to initiate action or submit the complaints and that the Form-5 as prescribed under Rule 9(1) of the Punjab Drugs Rules 1988, was not prepared at the time of seizure of these advertisements so he had acted with malice in order to blackmail the accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial court passed uncalled for remarks and even otherwise the findings recorded by it are erroneous. It is contended that a civil servant, who was performing his duties in good faith has been humiliated due to the remarks in question and his career has been exigmatized without any fault on his part.
4. Learned D.P.-G. Has contended that the State has not assailed the order of acquittal passed by the Drug Court but at the same time has no objection on the acceptance of the revision petition to the extent of the remarks passed against the petitioner.
5. The first observation of the learned trial Court regarding lack of authority to initiate action and submit the complaints is without force because if the advertisement published from place 'A' against the A provisions a section 24 of the Drugs Act, 1976 and in violation of the conditions laid down in Rule 31 of the Drugs (Licensing Registering and Advertising) Rules, 1976, is exhibited or circulated at place 'B' then the Drug Inspector posted at place 'B' can lawfully initiate action and submit the complaint before the Drug Court in territorial jurisdiction of which such place falls. No one can deny that if a substandard drug is A manufactured at place 'b' and subsequently it is offered for sale at place `IC then the court having jurisdiction at place 'K' would be competent to try the case. On same analogy, if an advertisement is exhibited or circulated at specific place then the Drug Court of the said area will have the jurisdiction irrespective of the place of its publication.
6. The other reason which prompted the learned trial Court to pass the above mentioned remarks was non-preparation of the inventories on Form-5 as required under section 18(f) of the Drugs Act, 1976 and Rule 9(1) of the Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988. Section 18 of the Drugs Act, 1976, deals with the inspection of the premises, wherein a drug is manufactured, inspection of the place, where the drug is stored or sold, power to take samples, authority to enter and conduct search, seizure of such drug and all other material used for manufacturing and other articles including registers and forms etc., the authority to require any person to appear before the Drug Inspector, power to lock and seal such factory and premises, power to forbid any person incharge of such premises from removing the drug or other articles, etc. And exercise of such powers, which are necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act. This provision, of course, relates to the extent of the premises, where drugs are manufactured, stored or sold and is provided in order to ensure strict observance of the Drugs Act, 1976, and the Rules made thereunder. Form-5 vividly reveals that it is to be prepared at the time of seizure of drugs and other material/articles at the time of inspection of the premises as mentioned in section 18 of the Drugs Act, 1976. Although the inventory in Form-5 was not required, the petitioner should have reduced the factum of securing the advertisements in black and white, which he did not do. This may be result of slackness but does not prove that he had acted with malice. Nothing was available before the learned trial Court to conclude that the action was taken in order to blackmail the accused persons or was tainted with malice. Another important aspect of the matter is that the District Quality Board had accorded the approval of the prosecution without pointing out the above-mentioned deficiency. After the said approval of the competent authority, the lapse on part of the petitioner cannot be termed as a malicious. The marks have put the career of a Government servant at stake without any serious fault on his part.
Unless it is proved that a Government servant is involved in corruption, financial or intellectual or in an immoral act or has performed his duties with malice or wilfully neglected law/Rules, his career should not be spoiled. We are of the considered view that the remarks passed by the learned trial Court were without any cogent reason and must be scored off.
7. For the reasons supra, the Criminal Revision is accepted and the remarks passed by the learned trial Court are set at naught. The concerned authority would treat the same as non-existent on the record.