' SALAUDDIN MIRZA, J.--- This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14th April, 1988, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge of making substandard drugs.
2. The facts leading to this appeal are that Mr. Altaf Hussain Hakro Inspector of Drugs, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad had instituted a complaint under sections 23(1)(a)(v) and 27(2) read with section 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976, against Messrs Kalco Pharma of Lahore and its Directors Muhammad Ashiq Mirza and Sheikh Mukhtar and its employees Abdur Rasheed, Incharge Production and Miss Nasra Akram, In charge Quality Control, on the basis of the following facts.
3. The complainant visited the shop of Messrs Faisal Medical Store, Station Road, Dadu, on 4-12- 1983 and took samples of Sulphadizine Tablets of Batch No.16483 and duly sealed them. One sealed portion of the sample was sent to the Government Analyst/Director Central Drugs Laboratory for test and analysis and the other portion of the sealed samples to the Chairman, Sindh Provincial Quality Control Board Karachi. The complainant also obtained purchase invoice etc. From Messrs Faisal Medical Store in respect of the samples. One sealed portion of the sample was also sent to the accused firm. The test report was received by the complainant from the Government Analyst/Director Central Drugs Laboratory vide report No.2316/83, dated 15-1-1983 whereby the sample was found to be of substandard quality. A copy of the test report was sent to the accused firm for its comments. The comments were received which were not found satisfactory where after the complainant referred the case to the Chairman, Sindh Provincial Quality Control Board, Karachi for the permission for the prosecution of the accused firm which was duly granted whereafter the complaint was filed in the Drugs Court, Sindh and Baluchistan at Karachi. The accused firm and its two Directors contested the complaint whereas its two employees who were accused Nos.3 and 4 absconded and were tried in absentia. The prosecution examined complainant Altaf Hussain (Exh.11). He narrated the entire action taken by him after securing the samples of Sulphadizine Tablets. He produced the test report of the Central Drugs Laboratory, Karachi, dated 15-1-1984 as Exh.24, notice dated 22-1-1984 sent to the accused firm (Exh.25), reply of the accused firm dated nil (Exh.26), letter of permission to ,prosecute the accused firm (Exh.27) and show-cause notice dated 5-3-1984 (Exh.28). Mr. Allah Bachayo Memon, Secretary of Provincial Quality Control Board, was examined as Court-witness No.1 and he produced two letters of the accused firm Exhs.37 and 38 addressed to the Secretary, Provincial Quality Control Board, Karachi in which the accused firm blamed its workers for dishonesty and theft of drugs and of preparing substandard drugs and also blamed counterfeitors who were immitating the trade name of the accused firm and were bringing in the market spurious drugs. He also stated that no re-testing of the sample was carried out as the Board did not accept the request of retesting in writing. The statement of accused Ashiq Mirza was recorded in which he challenged the test report Exh.24 and alleged that the sample had not been re-tested as per requirement of law. After assessing this evidence, learned trial Court came to conclusion that the accused firm vide their letter Exh.26 had requested, within the stipulated period of 30 days, for re-testing the samples and this was not done by the prosecution which was the denial of the right of the accused firm and was in violation of subsection (5) of section 22 of the Drugs Act, 1976, and on this ground benefit of doubt was given to the accused and they were acquitted. The only point agitated before us in this appeal is as to whether the prosecution of the respondents/accused was or was not void or illegal in the face of the mandatory provisions of subsection (5) of section 22 of the Drugs Act, 1976.
4. The mainstay of the case of the appellants is that although the respondents/accused had challenged the test report vide their letter Exh.26 and had requested for re-testing the sample in the National Health Laboratories, Islamabad, they had later on withdrawn this request and submitted apologies in the form of letters dated 29-4-1984 as Exh.37 and dated 19-11-1984 Exh.38. In Exh.37 the respondents had described the procedure of the manufacture of the Drugs in their factory and had stated that some unscrupulous persons had infiltrated the work-force and they might have stolen the precious drug during the process of manufacturing and thereby the finished product might have been substandard. They also stated that some elements might have been introduced in their ranks to damage their quality and their reputation and they also referred to a case in which a person was caught red-handed while selling spurious capsules bearing the monogram of the respondents' firm who was handed over to the police and in Exh.38 the respondents had similarly blamed some of their dishonest workers for stealing the main ingredients of the drug and thereby rendering the drug as substandard. A perusal of these two letters Exhs.37 and 38 shows that they are not exactly the admission of guilt. They only show that the respondents suspected that for the reasons given in those letters, the sample taken by the complainant might have been of substandard quality but these letters did not amount to unconditional admission of guilt. In any case, they had not given up their request for retesting of the samples, made by them in their letter Exh.26. The respondents had a right to make such a request and subsection (5) of section 22 of the Act makes it compulsory for the prosecution to send the sample for retesting to the Federal Drugs Laboratory or any other laboratory specified for the purpose by the Federal Government. This right of the respondents cannot be brushed aside on the basis of letters Exhs.37 and 38. It has been held time and again by this Court that the provisions of law should be strictly followed. We were also referred to Abdur Razzak v. The State Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1982 decided by this Court on 16th August, 1984 in which it was held that:- "The words of sections 19(2) and 22(2)(4) and Rule 16 and Form 6 of the Drugs Federal Inspector's Federal Drug Laboratory or Federal Government Analyst Rules, 1976 require that the provisions of the said Act and Rules should be observed with complete strictness and where the report was not in accordance with the legal provisions the appellant cannot be convicted on such report and where statutory powers are conferred and specific provisions are made in the statute as to the manner in which the powers are to be exercised they should be specifically carried out in accordance with the statute."
' A similar view can be deduced from the judgment in Muhammad Amin Khan and others v.
Muhammad Siddique and another 1984 P Cr. L J 1580. In this case report of the Chemical Analyst had not been received within the prescribed time of 60 days nor necessary permission of the Quality Control Board had been obtained for extension of time and on this ground it was held that the report of the Chemical Analyst could not be relied upon because it was in violation of the relevant provisions of law. The necessary inference is that the provisions of law should be strictly followed. Judgment in Khalid Mansoor and another v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 281 is also to the same effect and the same observations are made in it as in Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1982. As such, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the State that there was no necessity of retesting the samples, notwithstanding the request made to that effect in Exh.26, because this request stood withdrawn in the face of letters Exhs.37 and 38. Moreover, these letters are addressed to the Provincial Quality Control Board and were thus not addressed to the proper quarters. Under the circumstances we agree with the learned trial Court which gave benefit of doubt to the respondent in the face of clear violation of subsection (5) of section 22 of Drugs Act, 1976 and dismiss this appeal.