Lahore High Court Overturns Conviction in Drug Case Due to Procedural Lapses and Contradiction in Evidence

Islamabad 08-03-2025: In a significant ruling, the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, has set aside the conviction of accused person, who was sentenced under the Drugs Act, 1976, and Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012, for allegedly stocking and selling allopathic drugs without a license. The Court found serious procedural violations in the prosecution’s case, leading to the Appellant’s acquittal on the benefit of the doubt.  

The accused person was convicted by the Chairman Drug Court, Bahawalpur, on October 17, 2022, under:  

1. Section 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976 (Amended 2017): Sentenced to 30 days’ simple imprisonment and fined Rs. 500,000, with a default sentence of six months’ imprisonment.  
2. Schedule III(1)(a) of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 Sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the trial Court and fined Rs. 100,000, with a default sentence of six months’ imprisonment.   

The case originated from a raid conducted on August 18, 2017, by Drug Inspector, who alleged that accused person was stocking and selling allopathic drugs without a valid drug sale license, warranties, and spurious alternative medicines. The District Quality Control Board, Rahim Yar Khan, approved the prosecution, leading to the trial and conviction.  

During the appeal hearing, the Lahore High Court noted serious procedural irregularities in the case, which ultimately led to accused person’s acquittal:  

1. The Court found that the District Quality Control Board did not properly serve the mandatory show-cause notice to the appellant, violating Rule 5(3) of the Punjab Drug Rules, 2007. Naveed Asghar Vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600): Prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  
2. The prosecution failed to associate independent witnesses in the raid, violating Section 103 Cr.P.C., Section 18(1)(e) of the Drugs Act, 1976, and Para (1)(e) of Schedule V of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012. Muhammad Ismail Vs. The State (2017 SCMR 898): Recovery without independent witnesses is unreliable.  
3. The Court highlighted discrepancies in official documents, particularly the seizure memo (Form-5). While the prosecution claimed accused person refused to sign it, another official report stated he had signed and thumb-marked it, raising doubts about the credibility of the recovery process. Muhammad Nawaz Vs. The State (2024 SCMR 1731): Prosecution contradictions weaken the case.  
4. The Court emphasized that any single doubt in the prosecution’s case entitles the accused to acquittal. Ayub Masih Vs. The State; “Mistake of a judge in releasing a criminal is better than punishing an innocent.”  
5. The Appellant consistently argued that he was targeted due to a personal and political grudge by a local official, PW-2. The Court found merit in this claim, as PW-2 admitted he accompanied the Drug Inspector on the raid despite having no official role, which raised concerns of bias. Rehmat Ullah Vs. The State (2024 SCMR 1782): Cases must be free from political bias.  

The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and ordering the acquittal of accused person. His bail surety was discharged, and the judgment reaffirmed the importance of following legal procedures in criminal prosecutions.

Powered by Froala Editor