ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---This criminal appeal has been filed under section 31(7) of the Drugs Act, 1976 against the judgment dated 14.11.2017 ("impugned judgment ") passed by Drug Court of Balochistan (trial court ) in Drug Case No.51/2017, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 27(1)(a) read with section 34 of the Drugs Act, 1976 and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- each in default thereof to further undergo SI for one month.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25th February 2012, Amber Noreen, Drug Inspector District Quetta Zone- C/complainant inspected Messrs Aziz Traders, situated at Doctor Bano Road, Quetta along with one Shahid, watchman of Health Department, Quetta in presence of its owner Abdul Hadi, whereby took sample of unregistered Skysim Fort Syrup (120 ml), which she suspected to contain ingredients of allopathic drugs and that the same required registration under section 7(I)(a) of the Drugs Act, 1976.
After collection of the suspect drug sample, the complainant sent one sealed portion of the sample to the Government Analyst i.e. the Provincial Drug Testing Laboratory , Balochistan Quetta on the Form-06 vide memorandum-No. Dl-QA/Zone-C 21/2/2012, dated 25-02-2012; one sealed portion of the sample drug to manufacturer i.e. M/s Hit Natural Pharma, 25-A, Ammar Block, Nishtar Colony , 18 Km, Ferozepur Road, Lahore, vide letter No. 33/02/2012, dated 25/02/2012 and also informed the manufacturer i.e. Messrs Hit Natural Pharma for provision of complete test protocol i.e. the method of testing the sample drug on the one hand and the reference standard to the Government Analyst i.e. the Provincial Drug Testing Laboratory , Balochistan Quetta for test of suspected drug sample, whereby the Government Analyst declared the drug sample as of unregistered quality containing allopathic ingredient of Aluminum.
Thereafter the Provincial Quality Control Board (PQCB ) vide (letter dated 21st November 2016 informed the manufacturer firm for personal hearing for manufacturing unregistered drug i.e. Skysim Fort Syrup in contravention of section 7(I) of the Drugs Act, 1976, whereafter PQCB approved prosecution of the firm i.e. Messrs Hit Natural Pharma and its employees for commissio n of offence under section 23(1)(a) (vii) read with sections 27 and 34 of the Drugs Act, 1976.
The trial court registered the case on 25th March 2017 and charge was framed against the firm's employees namely Syed Abid Gillani, Managing Director and Asif Mehmood Shad to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. After a full dressed trial the trial court, vide impugned judgment dated 14th November 2017 convicted the appellants in the above terms. Hence this appeal.
3. Arguments advanced from both the sides have been heard. We have also minutely gone through the record available with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
4. Before dilating upon.the merits of the case it will be appropriate to attend to the question as to whether a Drug Inspector without being specially authorized is competent and authorized to inspect the medical stores etc. and to seize any drug which may be found having stored/kept for the purpose of sale or otherwise in violation of any provisions of Drugs Act or Rules made there under . Without attending the proposition in depth conveniently the provisions of sections 18 and 19 of the Drugs Act can be referred on the subject, bare perusal whereof reveal that a Drug Inspector subject to the provisions of section 19 and of any Rules made in this behalf is, competent and has the authority to inspect and premises within the local limits for which he/she is appointed wherein any drug is sold or is stocked or exhibited for sale and to exercise such or any of the powers conferred on him/her within the purview of section 18 of the Drugs Act, 1976 and to proceed further by following the procedure as contemplated under section 17 of the Act, however , a Drug Inspector is not authorized to exercise such powers in respect of any premises or place which falls beyond the local limits for which he/she is appointed except that such powers and authority becomes exercisable and vesting in him/her provided permission is accorded to him by the licensing authority for the purpose, hence the plea that a Drug Inspector in absence of such authorization is not competent to exercise powers within the meaning of section 18 of the Act within the local limits for which he/she is appointed, is without substance. Copy of the notification Ex.P/1-B has been placed on record by the complainant which indicate that she was posted as Drug Inspector Zarghoon Town by the competent Authority and since undisputedly Dr. Bano Road falls within the territorial limits of Tehsil and District Quetta within the local limits for which the complainant was posted by the competent Authority (the place where the medical store in question was situated/located) cannot be said to be beyond the local limits of the complainant, hence; the complainant having inspected the medical store of the appellant did not travel beyond her local limits for which no prior permission was required to have obtained by her from the licensing authority , within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 18 of the Act, therefore, the first limb of the arguments advanced by the appellant's learned counsel is not also available to him for declaring the exercise of jurisdiction and powers by the complainant to be void and without jurisdiction.
5. Reverting to the merits of the case PW-1/complainant Ambar Noreen Drug Inspector produced complaint, notification, Form-4, license of the distri butor , bill invoice, warranty of M/s Hit Natural Pharma, Form-6, sealed portion of PQCB, submission of test report by Provincial Drug Testing Laboratory to the Drug Inspector , the test report, personal hearing notice of PQCB issued to the manufacturer and approval for prosecution of Messrs Hit Natural Pharma and its proprietor/employees as (Ex.P/1-A to Ex.P/1-M) and corroborates their contents in letter and spirit by solemnly affirming the facts of collections of sample unregistered Skysim Fort Syrup manufactured by Hit Natural Pharma from Messrs Aziz Traders on Form-4 for test and analysis, the preparation of portions of the sample drug, the dispatch of the sample drug to the Government Analyst on Form-6, the declaration of the sample drug as unregistered by the Government Analyst, the show cause notice along with DTL report to the manufacturer and Messrs Aziz Traders, the information to manufacturer by PQCB and the grant of approval for prosecution of Messrs Hit Natural Pharma and its employees/proprietor for commission of offence of manufacturing and sale of unregistered Skysim Fort Syrup in contr avention of provisions of section 23(1)(a )(vii) and section 27 read with section 34 of the Drugs Act, 1976.
6. The appellant/accused Syed Abid Gillani and Asif Mehmood Shah in their statements recorded under sections 342 and 340(2), Cr.P.C. without leading any evidence denied the manufacture and sale of unregistered Skysim Fort Syrup on the ground that same was a natural herbal product and accordingly was immune from registration under the Drugs Act, 1976 in the year 2012. The sum and substances of on oath statement of the appellants are that Skysim Fort Syrup containing ingredients of natural products and being manufact ured since year 2011 had been and is still immune from registration under the Drugs Act, 1976. In cross-examination both appellants stated that the recovered drug was a homeopathic drug and manufactured at Messrs Natu ral Pharma or themselves. The appellants did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that the sample taken by the Drug Inspector/complainant i.e. Skysim Syrup was registered one. On the other hand the prosecution successfully discharged the burden of proof of the fact of manufacturing and sale of unregistered drug by Messrs Hit Natural Pharma and its employees/proprietor by producing documentary evidence including the report of Government Analyst.
7. It appears after the case was referre d to the Provincial Quality Control Board, show-cause notice was also served on the accused. But even in their reply to the said notice they did not raise any objection as to the validity of the report on the ground of absence of the protocols. On the contrary , they did not deny the said recovery and stated that it was registered drug. Similarly , they also took the stand in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. that: "the drugs recovered were herbal in nature and did not require registration till 2012." In our humble opinion the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record.
In view of the above we see no substance in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.