MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The case has been called out. It is 10‑28 a.m. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel has turned up. The learned State Counsel and Mr. M. Maqbool Amjad, Drugs Inspector from Rawalpindi district, are present. I therefore, proceed to hear the case on merits.

2. The facts of the case briefly are that a Drugs Inspector from Rawalpindi visited M/s. Hussain Medicos, Hazro, District Campbellpur and took a sample of Broncodine B. No. 279, a drug manufactured by Sultan Chemical Industries. Okara. He sent it for test and analysis to the Govern ment Analyst and Chemical Examiner, Lahore. According to the test report sent by the aforementioned officer the sample was found to be of sub‑standard quality. A complaint under section 27/28 of the Drugs Act, 1940 was filed ire the Court of S. Akhtar Ali Shah, M. I. C., Campbell-pur against Sajawal Hussain Shah, the proprietor of Hussain Medic, Hazro. Subsequently, when vie trial was in progress the Drugs Inspects, who is the complainant, filed an application requesting the learned trial Court to also summon Muhammad Ashraf petitioner the Manager of the Manufacturing Company as one of the accused persons. After hearing the argument the learned Magistrate passed the following orders on 16‑8‑1972.

3. It was contended that be was neither the manufacturer nor tile. Warrantor and was not in any way responsible for the defect in the drug. It was also submitted in the application that the learned trial Court issued the process to the petitioner without there being any evidence against him and that he was summoned without first directing the complainant to produce the warranty given by the petitioner.

The complainant Drugs Inspector who is present in Court informed my that Muhammad Ashraf petitioner is an official of the Sultan Chemical Industries, Okara and is actually incharge of tile production. He is therefore, liable under section 38 of Drugs Act, 1940 which reads as follows:‑-

"38. Where the person guilty of an offence under this Act is a company corporation or firm every director, partner and officer of the company, corporation or firm with whose knowledge and consent the offence was committed shall be guilty of the like offence."

He submitted further that since, Sajawal Hussain Shah produced the warranty, it is not essential to ask the petitioner to produce the same.

4. Having gone through the relevant portion of the Act, I am inclined to agree with the submission made by the Drugs Inspector. I find no force in the application and the same is therefore, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.