IJAZ AHMAD, J.- On 11-2-1994 the Drug Inspector respondent No. 2 alongwith other Drug Inspector visited the premises of M s. Quality Traders, outside Lohari Gate. Lahore and took samples of Skilax Drops bearing batches. Nos. 7318-7388 and sent the same to the Government Analyst for tent and analysis. The sample of the Drugs were found to be superious and sub-standard quality having certain marks of difference, vide report of Analyst dated 2-1-1995. Respondent No. 2 visited Gujrat Medicines House. Lohari Gate. Lahore on 4-1-1995 to verify the genuineness of Bill No. 514. Dated 15- 10-1994 issued in favour of the petitioner No. 2 by M/s. Gujrat Medicines House. Lohari Gate. Lahore.
But did not find Agha Nadeem petitioner No. 1 present there .On 5-1-1995 respondent No. 2 straightaway got the case registered with Police Station Lohari Gate. Lahore.
2. The petitioner's counsel contended as follows:-
(i) FIR has been recorded in .Violation of Sections 11(5 B) and 19(6) of Drugs Act. 1976 read with rule 4 of the Drug Rules. 1989. The criminal case under Sections 23/27 could not be registered without prior permission of the Provincial Quality Control Board set up under Section 11 of the Act.
(ii)- If Drugs found substandard. Section 22(4) and (5) grant right to the petitioner to challenge such report within 30 days, therefore, his report cannot be taken into consideration in violation of Section 22 of the Act.
(iii) The appointments of Drug Inspector. Divisional Inspector. Divisional Industries Inspector. District Inspector for Lahore area are in violation of the provisions of the said Act being Overlapping appointments for one and the same area.
(iv) appointment of the Analyist was not in accordance with the provisions of Act special in violation of Section I6 of Act as the notification did not mention area or classification which is a condition precedent.
3. The petitioner's counsel argued that the FIR was registered without prior permission of the Provincial Quality Control Board set up as required by Sections 11 (5-B). 19(6) of Drugs Act. 1976, read with rule 4 of Drug Rules, under the provision of said Act, therefore, FIR. May be quashed.
Relying on the following judgments.
AIR 1945 Privy Council 18 "Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar and l2 others v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani and others" (PLD 1994 S.C.
281)
Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Govt, of Pakistan, etc." (1994 SGMR 2.142)
Anwar Ahmad Khan v. The State and another" (1996 SCMR Crl. 31)
The State v. Muhammad Aslam Shakir etc" (NLR 1993 Crl. 31)
"Munir Ahmad v. The State" (NLR 1994 Crl. 642)
"Jameel Ahmad Khan and others v. AC. And others" (199Q P. Cr1. J. 1475)
"Abdul Haque v. The State" (PLD 1996 S.C. 1)
4. The petitioner's counsel further argued that Drug was found of substandard quality am1 the respondent No. 2 did not provide him an opportunity to challenge the same under Section 22.
Therefore, the proceedings are without lawful authority' and has referred "The State v. M/s. Kalco Pharma and4 others" (P.L.J. 1990 865).
5. The District Inspector respondent No. 2 was appointed in violation of the provisions of the Act.
And relied upon the judgment reported as "The State v. Iqbal Ahmed Khan" (1996 SCMR 767).
6. The learned counsel further argued that respondent No. 2 in his parawise comments admitted to the extent that no FIR shall be lodged without prior permission of Provincial Quality Control Board vide letter dated 20-7-1991 of the Govt, of Punjab. Health Department. The letter dated 30-12-1991 has authorised the Inspector to make a complaint to the Drug Court directly without seeking specific instructions of the Provincial Quality Control Board. The learned counsel argued that this letter did not authorise respondent No. 2 to lodge FIR against the Petitioner. Similarly letter dated 15- 1-1995 only' indicates to follow' up the cases and make reports to the Govt, of progress on top priority basis. This letter also does not authorise the respondent No. 2 to lodge FIR. Further, letter dated 18-3-1995 issued bv the Secretary Provincial Quality Control Board to the Inspector of Drugs Vehari, therefore, this letter also does not authorise respondent No. 2 to lodge FIR. The learned counsel also argued that Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq was not competent to allow respondent No. 2 to lodge FIR. Being at the same time holding the two posts i.e. Govt analyst and Secretary Punjab Quality Control Board, and that the report submitted by him is not a report in the eyes of lav prepared in violation of the Provisions of Punjab Act. 1976. He has relied upon the following case laws:- "Pakistan v. Public at Large" (P.L.J 1987 386)
" Rehmatullah v Ali Muhammad and another" (1983 SCMR 2100)
On the. Other hand, the learned Addl. A.G. Vehemently opposed the petition.
7. C.M. 886/95 was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading High Noon Laboratory. Lahore as party. Respondent in the writ petition. Similarly. C.M. No. 407.95 has been tiled under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on behalf of Malik Muhammad Hanif for impleading him as respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that in C.M. No. 886 95 an order was passed that it be heard alongwith main case, and in CM 407 95 order was passed that application is allowed subject to all just exception.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant in C.M. 886/95 Mr. Munir Ahmad Bhatti contended that applicants are lawful manufacturers of Skilax Drops bearing batches No. 7318-7388 which were found superious by the Govt. Analyist. Therefore, applicant are necessary party. The learned counsel further contended that, originally, in case of acquittal of the accused the complainant, had a right .To file revision petition under Cr.P.C, with permission of the Deputy Commissioner. Presently, by virtue of Enforcement of Sharia Act. 1991 and Article 2-A of the Constitution: and addition of Section 41712 - A I by way of amendment in Cr.P.C, on 14-11-1994. Any aggrieved person-has a right to file appeal against the acquittal of any accused without permission of D.C. He relied upon the following judgment:- "Daulat v. Mohabbat and 6 others" (PLD 1992 Lair. 167)
"Behram Khan and 4 others v. Mehr Mumtaz Hussain Lah. ADJ etc." (PLD 1992 Lah. 524)
9. The learned counsel of the applicant on merits, contended that petitioner No. 1 Khwaja Adnan has since been absconded, therefore. FIR cannot be quashed partially and narrated the facts in chronological order that Yasir M ah mood. Inspector, recovered the said batches on 11-12-1994 and prepared a report in form No. 12-12-1994 Yasir Mahmood sent his report to the Analyst. The Analyst found them superious vide 'ns report dated 2-1- 1997. On 14-12-1994. Applicant was contacted by the said Inspector and the applicant informed him that it was not manufactured by the applicant.
He further stated on the basis of the report and parawise comments of respondent No. 2 that FIR was rightly lodged.
10. The learned counsel then relied upon Section 154 Cr.P.C, and stated that any person can lodge the report and the Inspector is bound to take action, and in case the contention of the petitioner is accepted then Section 154 Cr.P.C, becomes redundant. The learned counsel further relied upon Section 3
11. The learned counsel keeping in view the above-mentioned provisions contended- that instructions can be oral. In the present case instructions have already been given in 1991 by competent authority through a general order. The learned counsel further contended that offence is of a serious nature and the life of the human-being is involved, therefore, writ cannot be issued as the action of the petitioners comes under the area of injustice to the general public and relied upon: "Market Committee. Multan, etc. v. Muhammad Sabir" (1995 SCMR 305).
The learned counsel further contended that action of the petitioner is based on illegality, therefore. High Court cannot exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and relied upon: "Muhammad Ishaq v. MBR and 18 others" (1994 MLD 2254).
The learned counsel further contended that the FIR lodged by way of irregular proceedings cannot be quashed under Article 199 and relied upon AIR 1955 S.C.
196. The learned counsel further contended that High Court cannot interfere in the investigation and FIR cannot be quashed. He relied upon:- Malik Shoukat Ali Dobar and l2 others v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khanwani and others' (PLD 1994 SC 281)
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply, contended that applicant is not necessary party as the applicant is only witnesses in the proceedings before respondent No. 1 and relied Upon: "Syed Ah Nawaz Shah Gardezi v. It. Col. Muhammad Yusuf Khan. Commissioner" (PLD 1962 Lah.
558).
"Pakistan Banking Council and another v. Alt Mohtarm Naqvi and others" (1985 SGMR 714).
"Abdul Ghafar V The Thai Development Authority" (PLD 1972 Lah. 169).
13. I have given my active consideration to the contentions of all the learned counsel. The material point involves for determination in the present case is whether the respondent No. 2 was competent to lodge FIR. Without obtaining permission from the Quality Control Board. I confine myself only to this question, It is condition precedent under relevant provisions of the Drugs Act. 1976 and rule 4 of Drugs Rules that criminal case under Sections 23- 27 of the Drugs Act cannot be registered without prior permission of the Quality Control Board set up under Section 11 of the Act.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.2 did not seek any permission from the Quality Control Board. Annexures R. 1 to R. 3 alongwith report parawise Comments of respondent No. 2 .Do not support the case of respondent No. 2. In the absence of permission from the competent authority the proceedings suffer from coram non judice as initiated against the mandators provisions of law, therefore, based on mala fides and without lawful authority as held in PLD 1971 SC 124. The subsequent proceedings, based on the FIR illegally lodged, are also bound to fall on the ground automatically, as is held in PLD 1982 Lahore 1.
15. In view of what has been discussed this writ petition is accepted and the FIR is quashed, with no order as to costs. The respondents are at liberty to act in accordance with law. As the writ petition is accepted after hearing the arguments of the applicant in the afore-mentioned C.M. , there is no need to pass any separate order on the application and stand disposed of as such.