' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---This appeal by the leave of the Court challenges the judgment passed by the learned Judges of the High Court whereby the Constitution petition filed by the respondents was allowed and the proceedings instituted against them by appellant No,2 were declared to be without lawful authority.
2. The brief facts are that on 27-12-1983, one Ali Akbar Sial, claiming to be the Inspector of Drugs, Government of Sindh, obtained samples of multivitamin tablets of Batch No,1005-1 from the Government I & I Medical Stores Depot near JPHC, Karachi, which was manufactured by respondent Not. He sent it to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Karachi for analysis and by certificate dated 28-1-1984 the Laboratory certified the sample to be of substandard quality. A show-cause notice was issued to respondent No,1 who claimed re-testing of the sample. The re-testing report confirmed the earlier report. Thereafter A. Jabbar Kazi, the Provincial Inspector of Drugs, after obtaining permission from appellant No,1 filed a complaint in the Drug Court for taking action against respondent No,1 for contravening the provisions of section 21 of the Drugs Act, 1976, punishable under sections 27(4) and 34 of the Drugs Act, 1976. The respondents challenged this action in the High Court through a Constitution petition, which was allowed by the impugned order which reads as follows:--- "Since the Gazette notifying respondent No,3 as a notified Inspector of Drugs which has been published on 6-10-1988 whereas the present proceedings were initiated in January, 1988, before respondent No,3 was notified as the Drugs Inspector for the purpose of prosecution (though the notification is dated 13-1-1985) the proceedings initiated are not legal.
' We would, therefore, allow the above petition and declare the impugned proceedings to be without lawful authority, but it will be open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law."
3. Leave was granted to consider whether any Inspector notified by the Provincial Government irrespective of any local area assigned to him was competent to file complaint under section 30(b) of the Drugs Act.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties who have argued at length on the point on which leave was granted. However, in our view there is more important question involved in principle, namely, whether in a criminal prosecution it is proper to exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution particularly when remedies have been provided under the statute to the accused. In a prosecution under the Drugs Act the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are application and the trial by the Drugs Court is conducted as provided by the Drugs Act as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under section 31(4) of the Drugs Act a Drug Court has all the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure on a Court of Session exercising original jurisdiction. Therefore whether the cognizance of offence could be taken under section 30 in view of the objection raised by the respondents in the Constitution petition could be pressed before the Drug Court. The respondents could have approached the. Drug Court under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
For challenging the proceedings if they were defective and not as provided by section 30 of the Drugs Act. In such circumstances, the High Court should have refused to exercise discretion under Article 199 of the Constitution. In A. Habib Ahmad v. M.K.G. Scott Christian and others PLD 1992 SC 353 it was observed as follows:- "Undoubtedly, the case of Ghulam Muhammad had come before the Supreme Court through an interruption by the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The order of the High Court quashing the proceedings before the trial Court was set aside and it was directed that the criminal cases were to proceed before the Court concerned in accordance with the normal law.
' The aforestated view and principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in other cases as well, which came before it through the jurisdiction of the High Court other than section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
They included revisional and writ jurisdictions. See Abdur Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522 and Abdul Aleem v. Special Judge (Customs), Lahore 1982 SCM R 73. The case of Abdul Aleem had arisen out of a similar case. A learned Special Judge/Customs notwithstanding the legal objections raised from the accused side with regard to the competency of the criminal proceedings before him formally charged the accused. A criminal revision filed by him having been dismissed he sought relief for quashment of the criminal case through a writ petition and the same had to be dismissed mainly on the ground that the High Court would not "in its discretionary jurisdiction short circuit the normal procedure of trial as provided by law." This Court refused to grant leave to appeal. It was observed as. Follows:--- "We are of the view that the approach of the learned Single Judge in the High Court in refusing to deflect the normal course of a criminal case through exercise of writ jurisdiction is not only salutary but also in accord with the principles laid down by this Court in Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others PLD 1967 SC 317, although the case dealt with therein...."
5. Applying the above principles to the present case, we find that there was no justification in granting the relief in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. We, therefore, allow the appeal. The case will now proceed before the Drugs Court where the respondents will the at liberty to raise such objection as is permissible under law.