' Petitioner Muhammad Younas seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.212 of 2012 dated 28-5-2012 registered under sections 23, 27 and 30 of the Drug Act, 1976 at Police Station Kot Mithan District Raj anpur.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 25-4-2011, the Drug Inspector inspected the business premises of the petitioner known as Haq Bahu Medical Hall Kot Mithan and found spurious drugs i.e. Cytotee 200mg Batch No.264202 manufactured by Messrs Pfizer Hellas A.E. Tablets Penagra 100mg Batch No.MT9-551 manufactured by Messrs Maiden Pharmaceuticals India, Vicks Vaporub 19mg Batch No.02016510 manufactured by Messrs Macter International Karachi and Suspension Suprofen 90m1 Batch No.SF005 manufactured by Messrs Kohs Pharmaceuticals Hyderabad and took the same into possession. He also seized the drugs on Form No.5 which were without drugs sale licence, without warranty, unregistered and expired. The samples of the aforementioned medicines were sent to the Government Analyst DTL Punjab Multan. The samples of Penagra 100mg Batch No.MT9-551 manufactured by Messrs Maiden Pharmaceuticals India were found substandard whereas the sample of drugs Cytotec 200mg Batch No.264202 manufactured by Messrs Pfizer Hellas A.E. Were found Spurious vide its Report No.TRA3954/DTL dated 27-5-2011.
After obtaining the permission from the Board concerned, this case was registered against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner is false and concocted one; that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner; that his signatures on Form No.5 were taken under coercion; that no person from the public was joined at the time of the alleged recovery in violation of the provisions of section 103 Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner is not the manufacturer of any spurious drug, therefore, his case is of further inquiry and as such he is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Learned D.P.G. Has opposed this petition and it is contended that during the raid, huge quantity of spurious drugs was recovered from the business premises of the petitioner, who signed the recovery memo and he has also wrongly disclosed his name as Muhammad Adeel at the spot; that. After thorough inquiry, the Punjab Quality Control Board has recommended for the registration of the case against the petitioner; that sufficient incriminating material is available on record against the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned D.P.G. For the State and have perused the record.
6. During the inspection of the business premises i.e. Haq Bahoo Medical Hall Kot Mithan, certain medicines were seized and were taken into possession and most of them were found spurious drugs during analysis by the Government Analyst DTL Multan. In case titled "Mrs. Jumana Khursheed v. Ist A.D.J. Karachi East and 2 others (2007 YLR 363 [Karachi])", the description of the spurious drugs has not been given and it is not mentioned that whether the medicines seized were sent to the analyst expert or not and they were found spurious or not but in this case the samples were sent to the government Analyst and were found spurious.
7. In case titled "The State v. Iqbal Khan" (1996) SCMR 767)", the point involved was that whether Divisional Inspector appointed under section 17 was competent to institute the case/prosecution before the Drug Court or not. Therefore, the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
6. Now it has been settled by the superior Courts that the police personnel are as good witnesses as persons from the public unless mala fide is established against them. The persons from public are normally reluctant to offer themselves as witnesses in order to avoid animosity.
7. The petitioner has kept spurious drugs for selling at this business place which were recovered in his presence. He was caught red-handed. The samples of recovered medicines were sent to the Government Analyst and most of the medicines were found substandard and spurious. The petitioner has prima facie committed an offence which has got a direct impact on the public at large and the persons who are facing the agony of life and death due to their ailments. A person dealing in spurious drugs chooses the said business knowingly that the same directly affects the health of the public. He sells the suspicious drugs just for getting monetary benefit in an easy way in a short period of time and sells it to the persons with whom he has got no personal grudge and enmity. The tendency of sale of spurious drugs is at its peak now-a-days and requires to be dealt with iron hands in order to save the innocent persons to be the victims thereof. In such circumstances we hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail at this early stage.
' For the reasons supra, the petition in hand is without any merit, the same stands dismissed.