Recovery of drugs from medical store--Sale/purchase of drug without registration--

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 813 (DB)

Drugs Act, 1976 (XXXI of 1976)--

----S. 23(1)(a)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Appreciation of evidence--Recovery of drugs from medical store--Sale/purchase of drug without registration--Admittedly prosecution witnesses being government officials had no ill-will against appellant to falsely involve him in this case--Perusal of record available on file reflects that not an iota of evidence could be brought on record, from where it could be gathered that appellant was falsely roped in instant case--Prosecution had fully substantiated its case against appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt by leading cogent and confidence inspiring evidence and trial Court while appreciating evidence available on record in its true perspective, rightly recorded conviction and sentence against him--Counsel for appellant has failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or mis-reading/non-reading of evidence in impugned judgment inviting interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction--Appeal dismissed.                                    

                                                                                      [P. 816] A & B

Syed Muhammad Jaffar Tayyar Bukhari, Advocate for Appellant.

 Hafiz Sohaib Altaf, Advocate/Defence Counsel.

Mr. Mohammad Ali Shohab, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Date of hearing: 10.11.2021.

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 813 (DB)
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Asjad Javaid Ghural and Ali Zia Bajwa, JJ.
GHULAM MUSTAFA--Appellant
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. A. No. 118 of 2011, heard on 10.11.2021.

Judgment

Ali Zia Bajwa, J.--Through this criminal appeal filed under Section 31 of the Drugs Act, 1976, (wrongly mentioned under Section 408, Cr.P.C., in the memo. of appeal) Ghulam Mustafa son of Muhammad Siddique, resident of Mohalla Islam Wala, Adda Hari Chand. Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari, appellant, has challenged his conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned Drug Court, Multan in complaint filed under Section 23 read with Section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976, vide judgment dated 24.02.2011, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:

Ø  Under Section 23(1)(a) of the Drugs Act, 1976, sentenced to R.I for three years with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months.

Ø  Under Section 23(1)(i) of the Drugs Act, 1976, sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in case of default in payment thereof, to undergo S.I. for two months.

Ø  Under Section 23(1)(c) of the Drugs Act, 1976, sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default in payment thereof, to undergo S.I. for two months.

Ø  All the sentence inflicted upon the appellant were directed to run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in his favour.

2. Brief but essential facts of the case necessary for disposal of the appeal in hand are that on 16.08.2007, Tariq Mehmood, Drug Inspector/complainant (PW-1) along with Abdul Ghaffar, Naib Qasid (PW-2) visited Mustafa Medical Store situated at Adda Hari Chand Mailsi for inspection. At that time qualified person was not present in the medical store. During inspection the complainant recovered/seized eight items of medicines kept there without warranty and without sale/purchase record out of which one drug was found to be ‘unregistered’. He recorded the drugs (P-1 to P-8) in Form No. 5 (Exh.PA). The Drug Inspector secured statement, signature and thumb marks of the accused on Form No. 5 (Exh.PA/1). Thereafter, he sent the case to District Quality Control Board (DQCB), Vehari seeking permission to prosecute the accused through letter Exh.PB. On receipt of requisition permission vide letter No. R-16-08/07(487) 10 dated 11.3.2008, the Drug Inspector launched Complaint No. 92/DIM dated 18.06.2008 against the accused vide letter Exh.PC before the learned Drug Court, Multan.

3. On submission of complaint, the appellant was indicted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 29.01.2020 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to substantiate its version produced as many as four (4) prosecution witnesses.

Tariq Mehmood, Drug Inspector (PW-l)/complainant and Abdul Ghaffar, Naib Qasid (PW-2) were witnesses of recovery. Robina Taj (PW-3) and Imran Rashid, Drug Inspector (PW-4) were Secretary DQCB.

4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C.; wherein he refuted the allegations levelled against him in the prosecution evidence. He neither opted to appear as his own witness in terms of Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor adduced evidence in his defense. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court recorded conviction and sentence against the appellant in the afore-stated terms.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/learned defence counsel, as well as, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and gone through the record available on file with their able assistance.

6. In this particular case, prosecution version hinges upon evidence qua ocular/recovery and permission of DQCB for prosecution of the accused.

As far as prosecution version qua recovery is concerned, the same has been advanced through the statements of Tariq Mehmood, Drug Inspector (PW-1) and Abdul Ghaffar, Naib Qasid (PW-2). While appearing in the witness-box both the prosecution witnesses gave detailed pen-picture of their inspection at Mustafa Medical Store situated at Adda Hari Chand Mails, recovery of eight items of drugs (P-1 to P-8) from there, which were without warranty/without sale/purchase record including one drug without registration, which were duly incorporated in Form No. 5 (Exh.PA). Although they were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, nothing adverse to the prosecution version could be brought on record. So much so statement, signature and thumb impression on Form No. 5 reflect that the accused was well aware about the recovery of drugs (P-1 to P-8) from his Medical Store, which remained un-rebutted.

7. Thereafter, the Drug Inspector sent the case to DQCB, Vehari, soliciting permission to prosecute the accused; where the matter was put before the board by Robina Taj, Secretary of the Board, who appeared during the course of trial as PW-3. She affirmed the receipt of reference by the Drug Inspector and its placement before the Board and after deliberation the Board accorded/sanctioned prosecution, which was conveyed vide letter Exh.PD.

8. Admittedly the prosecution witnesses being government officials had no ill-will against the appellant to falsely involve him in this case. Perusal of record available on file reflects that not an iota of evidence could be brought on record, from where it could be gathered that the appellant was falsely roped in the instant case.

9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution had fully substantiated its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt by leading cogent and confidence inspiring evidence and the learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence available on record in its true perspective, rightly recorded conviction and sentence against him. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or mis-reading/non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment inviting interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. Resultantly Crl. Appeal No. 118/2011 being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed in toto as a consequence whereof, the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant by the learned trial Court in terms of judgment dated 24.02.2011 is maintained.

(A.A.K.)          Appeal dismissed