Lahore High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail in Medicated Cosmetics Case Involving Unregistered Products which fell under the Drugs Act, 1976 and DRAP Act, 2012
Islamabad 12-10-2024: In a significant ruling, the Lahore High Court has dismissed a pre-arrest bail application filed by Amir Mahmood, the CEO of SSI Marketing Network, in a case involving the manufacturing and sale of unregistered medicated cosmetics. The case stems from a raid conducted by the Provincial Drug Inspector at SSI’s premises, during which five products containing active allopathic drug ingredients were seized without valid manufacturing licenses. The decision marks an important enforcement of the Drugs Act, 1976 and the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 (DRAP Act) in the cosmetics industry.
The case was initiated following an inspection by the Drug Inspector of Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore, at the manufacturing facility of SSI Marketing Network. The Inspector found five medicated cosmetics, including Aneeza Gold Beauty Cream and Brido Luxury Gold Beauty Cream, without valid licenses. After testing, the Drug Testing Laboratory (DTL) confirmed the presence of unregistered allopathic ingredients, prompting the registration of [FIR No. 2590/2024] under sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976, and section 27 of the DRAP Act.
Amir Mahmood, the Petitioner, applied for pre-arrest bail, arguing that he was merely an employee and that the actual owner of SSI, Ijaz Ahmad, was responsible for the manufacturing. Mahmood’s counsel contended that the case should fall under the Pakistan General Cosmetics Act, 2023, which governs non-medicated cosmetics, rather than the Drugs Act.
The Court rejected the Petitioner’s argument, stating that the seized products were medicated cosmetics as defined under the DRAP Act, 2012, which regulates cosmetics containing active drug ingredients. The Court found that the Drug Inspector had the authority to inspect the facility under section 18 of the Drugs Act and seize products in violation of the law.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that Mahmood was not merely an employee but a partner in SSI, as evidenced by a partnership deed dated 28.04.2023. The Court noted that even if Ijaz Ahmad provided the capital, Mahmood was liable as an equal partner, sharing both profits and responsibilities.
In its ruling, the Lahore High Court emphasized that there was sufficient incriminating material against Amir Mahmood, particularly the seizure of unregistered medicated cosmetics and the DTL’s confirmation of their illegal status. The Court also found no evidence of any ulterior motives or false implication behind the FIR, a necessary condition for granting pre-arrest bail under Pakistani law.
The Court cited relevant case law on pre-arrest bail, including Muhammad Safdar Vs. The State (1983 SCMR 645) and Rana Abdul Khaliq Vs. The State (2019 SCMR 1129), which require proof of harassment or malice for pre-arrest bail to be granted. The Court concluded that there was no such evidence in this case.
The Lahore High Court’s ruling underscores the regulatory oversight of the medicated cosmetics industry in Pakistan. By dismissing the pre-arrest bail application, the Court has reinforced the need for compliance with the Drugs Act, 1976 and the DRAP Act, 2012, especially in the manufacturing and sale of products containing active drug ingredients. The case will now proceed to trial, where the charges against Amir Mahmood will be adjudicated based on the evidence presented.
The Court’s observations are tentative, and the trial Court will make the final determination on the merits of the case.
Powered by Froala Editor
