' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, C.J.--- This criminal appeal under section 31(7) of the Drugs Act, 1976 has been directed against judgment, dated 19-8-2000 passed by the learned Drug Court, Balochistan, Quetta in complaint Case No,3 of 2000 whereby the appellant has been found guilty of the offence under section 27(1)(a) of the Drugs Act, 1976 and sentenced to six months' R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 in default of payment of fine to further suffer S.I. For a period of one month.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1/Drug Inspector, Lasbela at Uthal filed a complaint under section 23(1)(a)(vii) read with section 27(1)(a) of Drugs Act, 1976 after obtaining sanction of prosecution from the Provincial Quality Control Board, in the Drugs Court, Balochistan at Quetta on 31-3-2000 against the appellant (Haji Faqirullah) alleging therein that the accused was found selling unregistered medicine in Noori Medical Store, Lakhra; accordingly, the same were seized as per prescribed Form No,5 from the said medical store in presence of accused and the complainant in exercise of the powers and authority vesting in him as Drug Inspector, Lasbela at Uthal being the Authorised Officer inspected the medical store and found unregistered medicines being sold in Noori Medical Store.
' The learned Drug Court took cognizance of the offence in view of the accusation as contained in the complaint and process was issued against the accused, to whom copies of the complaint and other documents were supplied. The accused was indicted on the charge that on 16-8-1999 his medical store known as Noori Medical Store, Lakhra was checked during the course whereof unregistered drug namely "Zinetic" tablets, 150 mg. Were recovered from his medical store and thereby he committed the offence under section 23 made punishable under section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976 within the cognizance of the Court, to which he pleaded not guilty and the complainant in order to substantiate the accusation appeared in the witness-box as C.W.1 and produced one witness namely Muhammad Anwar, Junior Clerk, Office of Drug Inspector, Lasbela as C.W.2 and closed his side of evidence.
3. After close of the prosecution evidence accused was examined by the learned Drug Court hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he disputed the accusation as well as the incriminating pieces of evidence and claimed to be innocent. The accused explained that the complainant in order to avoid payment of drugs owed by him has made false accusation. The accused opted to record his statement on oath in disproof of the charge within the purview of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And did not produce any witness in his defence.
After close of the parties evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment impugned herein convicted and sentenced the appellant as abovementioned.
4. Complainant's evidence.--- Malik Masood Hussain, respondent No,1 (complainant). He deposed that on 16-8-1999 he was posted as Drug Inspector, Lasbela District on which date he proceeded to Tehsil Lakhra and inspected Noori Medical Store where accused Faqirullah was present and on demand licence of the Medical. Store was produced to him by the accused and thereafter, he checked the medicines kept in the shelves and during such process he recovered 70 tablets of a drug known as 'Zinetic' in the form of strips seven in number, each containing ten tablets being an unregistered drug, accordingly; the same were seized vide prescribed Form No,5 produced by the complainant as Exh.P./1-A bearing his signature and that of accused about which he failed to _produce any warranty/bill. According to the complainant the seizure memo. Also bears the signature of Muhammad Anwar as Masheer. He produced the sealed packet of the seized medicine as article in Court and identified the medicine, taken into possession by him as the unregistered drug. He also affirmed that abovesaid medicine was sealed into parcel in presence of accused and the witness Muhammad Anwar. He produced the permission accorded by the Quality Control Board for prosecution of the accused as Exh.P./1-B whereafter he filed complaint in the learned Drug Court produced by him as Exh.P./1-C and identified the appellant as the accused.
' Muhammad Anwar, Junior Clerk of Office of Drug Inspector (C.W.2). According to the witness he was posted as Junior Clerk in the office of Drug Inspector and on 16-8-1999 he alongwith Drug Inspector proceeded to Lakhra and they visited Noori Medical Store belonging to accused Haji Faqirullah present in Court. The witness further added that the Drug Inspector, Masood Hussain seized the tablets in his presence from the medical store known as Zinetic tablets and were sealed.
He explained that 70 tablets of the said drug were seized, about which seizure memo. Was prepared on the prescribed form produced by the witness as Exh.P./2-A bearing his signature. He also produced the sealed parcel as article bearing his signature and identified the seven stripes of the medicine.
5. Defence evidence.--- Accused appeared as his own witness in defence and deposed that the 'Zinetic' tablets produced in Court were not recovered from his medical store nor at the relevant time he was present in his medical store. He disputed the signature stated to have been inscribed by him on the packet and claimed that his father's name is Haji Muhammad Ismail. He produced photo copy of his identity card as Exh.D/1. He took the plea that for personal reasons false complaint has been filed against him for the reason that he demanded for the price of the medicines purchased from his medical store by the Drug Inspector for use in the clinic of his wife.
He explained that hotels are situated near to his medical store, but no one from the adjacent hotels was called to stand as witness to the alleged recovery.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, the learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State as well as the complainant, Drug Inspector. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Butt contended that the complainant being a Drug Inspector was not authorized and competent to inspect the medical store of the appellant in absence of authorization having been specifically conferred upon him and secondly the medical store did not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the complainant, hence; the entire proceedings including filing of the complaint are void and without jurisdiction. Further the learned counsel contended that the complainant through evidence failed to establish the charge against the accused hence; findings of guilt arrived at by the learned Drug Court based upon misreading of the evidence, cannot sustain.
7. The learned Assistant Advocate-General contended that the complainant being the Drug Inspector appointed for District Lasbela at Uthal in exercise of the powers vested in him within the meaning of section 18 read with section 19 of the Drugs Act, 1976 was an authorized Officer to inspect the medical stores and to seize any medicine kept or stored in such medical store for sale or otherwise in violation of any provision of section 23 of the Act and Rules made thereunder situated within the local limits of the Drug Inspector. The learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted that the medical store is situated in Lakhra, Tehsil Uthal, within the local limits of the complainant to which he was posted by the competent Authority, hence; being a Drug Inspector, the complainant was competent and authorized to inspect the medical store of the appellant and seize any drug, and; to proceed further in accordance with law for violation of relevant provisions of law or the Rules made thereunder. The learned Assistant Advocate-General streneously argued that the complainant through evidence successfully established the charge that unregistered drug was found kept by the appellant in his medical store about which he failed to substantiate or prove his bona fides through defence evidence, hence, the learned Drug Court on proper appraisal of evidence and application of law, rightly found the accused as guilty on the charge to which no exception can be taken. He argued that appeal being devoid of any substance, is liable to dismissal.
8. The complainant/respondent No,1 adopted the arguments put forth by the learned Assistant Advocate-General and filed on record relevant notification pertaining to his appointment and posting in his capacity as Drug Inspector.
9. We have considered the contentions put forth on behalf of the parties and by the complainant in the light of the evidence produced by the parties at the trial which has been gone through carefully including the impugned judgment. Also, the copies of the notifications placed on record during the course of arguments by the complainant as well as the relevant provisions of Drugs Act, 1976 with particular reference to the provisions of sections 18/19 and 23 of the Drugs Act, 1976 have been considered. 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 thereunder. 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 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 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 is appointed except that such powers and authority becomes exercisable and vesting in him 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 is appointed, is without substance. Copy of the notification has been placed on record by the complainant which indicate that he was posted at Uthal as Drug Inspector by the competent Authority and since undisputedly Lakhra falls within the territorial limits of Tehsil Uthal e.g. 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 his local limits for which no prior permission was required to have obtained by him from the licensing authority, within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 18 of the Act, therefore, the second 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.
Reverting to the merits of the case the accusation is that on inspection of the medical store of the appellant known as Noori Medical Store 70 tablets of Zenitic drug contained in seven strips were recovered in presence of C.W.2 and the same being unregistered drug was A accordingly seized and taken into possession by the complainant in presence of the accused as per prescribed procedure amounting to criminal action made punishable under section 27(1)(a) of the Drugs Act, 1976 and in order to substantiate the accusation, consequent upon the accused having not pleaded guilty to the charge, the complainant/ respondent No,1 appeared in the witness-box as C.W.1 and produced Muhammad Anwar, Junior Clerk in his office as C.W.2 to corroborate and support the accusation. The oral evidence in support of the accusation is that tablets of unregistered drug namely 'Zenitic' were recovered; has been disputed and challenged in cross- examination by the defence as well as through defence evidence, therefore, irrespective of the defence plea it was obligatory on the part of the complainant in order' to bring home the guilt against the accused to have had independently proved through documentary evidence that the drug in question was not a registered drug or by producing an authenticated certificate of the competent Authority showing that the same was an unregistered drug but no such documentary evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove the accusation, hence; in the given facts and circumstances of the case as they emerge from the evidence mere assertion of the drug being an unregistered one will not ipso facto 'result or amount to proof of the charge particularly when the accused did not take any of the pleas by way of defence within the purview of section 32 of the Drugs Act and denied in toto of any unregistered drug to have been stored/kept in his medical store for the purpose of sale etc. Therefore, in our considered view the complainant/prosecution having failed to establish that 'Zenitic' tablet was an unregistered drug did not expose the accused to any criminal liability under section 23(1)(a) of the Act, consequently, evidence regarding recovery of stated drug from the medical store of the accused will be inconsequential.
' Thus, in view of the above discussion and reasons the conviction and the sentence awarded to the accused under section 27(1)(a) of the Drugs Act, 1976 vide impugned judgment are set aside, consequently, he is acquitted on the charge. The result is that this appeal succeeds.