ABDUL HAMEED Versus GHULAM KADIR MEMON

This is an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. filed by one Abdul Hamid praying for quashment of proceedings instituted against him by Inspector of Drugs, Hyderabad in the Court of Second Additional City Magistrate, Hyderabad. Mr. Fazal-e- Ghani has appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Nooruddin Jatoi for the State. Since the petitioner had impleaded Mr. Ghulam Kadir Memon, Inspector of Drugs, Hyderabad as respondent in the petition, he has also appeared in person.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that petitioner Abdul Hamid is a partner of "Common Wealth Chemical Company" carrying on business at Lahore. Mr. Ghulam Kadir Memon obtained samples of a drug known as Tr. Cardmon from the shop of one Mohammad Ramzan Shaikh. The said Mohammad Ramzan produced a warranty signed on behalf of the firm of the petitioner. On the basis of this warranty Mr. Ghulam Kadir Memon filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 18 (a) (1) read with section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940. The case had- not proceeded in the trial Court before the record was called for by the then High Court of West Pakistan Lahore.

3. The grounds raised in the petition in support of the prayer for quashment are :-

(1) That drugs supplied by the petitioner had been passed by the Chemical Analyser, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore.

(2) That the complainant Mr. Ghulam Kadir Memon was victimising the petitioner, in that he had filed four prosecutions against him.

(3) That the petitioner was a respectable person doing business at Lahore.

4. I am afraid none of these grounds are good enough for quashment of proceedings in this case. Respectability of an accused is no ground to quash proceedings nor is the bias of a complainant a ground. Furthermore, in this case, the com plainant Ghulam Kadir Memon had filed the complaint in the discharge of his official duties and inference of bias cannot be easily drawn. With regard to the contention that the drugs supplied by the petitioner have been passed by the Chemical Examiner before the distribution to Chemists is properly a point which the petitioner can take before the trial Court and I have no doubt that it shall be given its due weight.

5. Moreover, since no evidence has been recorded in this case and the proceedings are still at the very initial stage, it will be stifling prosecution by preventing examination of evidence by the trial Court.

6. Under these circumstances, this quashment application is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with this case expeditiously because under some circumstances the disposal of the case has been delayed over long.