SHC dismisses man’s plea in counterfeit drugs manufacturing case

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed the bail application of a man who was involved in manufacturing counterfeit drugs. Syed Zia Hussain Shah had been arrested by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) for his alleged involvement in manufacturing counterfeit drugs.

He had moved the court against his bail’s rejection by a drugs court on the grounds that the evidence strongly suggested his involvement in manufacturing counterfeit drugs, which is a serious offence with potential health consequences.

The prosecution said that a joint FIA and drug regulatory authority team had raided an unregistered drug manufacturing facility operating out of Ashra-e-Mubashira Masjid in Karachi, and five suspects had been arrested and charged with illegally manufacturing and selling fake and spurious drugs.

The prosecution alleged that the team seized the fake, unregistered and spurious drugs, the pharmaceuticals manufacturing machinery, the stock on Form-2 and samples for analysis. The prosecution claimed that the investigating officer recovered two aluminium foils of tablets, namely Tegral and Cefixime, carrying 25kg each, and the applicant failed to justify the legal capacity to carry such material.

The applicant’s counsel said his client was innocent and falsely implicated in the case as no drugs or pharmaceutical ingredients had been recovered, adding that the alleged recovery was merely the recovery of aluminium foils, which was not an offence.

The counsel said the applicant was not involved in the import, export, manufacture or distribution of drugs, and circumstantial evidence does not prove direct involvement of the applicant. He said the applicant was unaware of the counterfeit nature of the materials, if any, and none of the allegations against him fell within the mischief category under Section 23 or Section 27 of the Drugs Act.

The counsel said that no drug whatsoever or even pharmaceutical ingredient had been alleged to have been recovered from the applicant, adding that the case against him was not covered by any of the penal provisions of the Drugs Act.

The deputy attorney general opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the grounds that applicant had been found in the possession of materials used to manufacture counterfeit drugs, including Tegral and Cefixime.

He said the applicant’s actions contravene Section 26 of the Drugs Act, which prohibits printing labels without a licence, and the recovered materials directly link the applicant to the manufacturing of counterfeit drugs, making him a potential accomplice.

He added that under Section 34 of the Drugs Act, the applicant was liable to be held, even if he did not directly manufacture the drugs, justifying the search and seizure procedures as lawful.

An SHC division bench comprising Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Adnanul Karim Memon said the applicant had been charged under Sections 23 and 27 of the Act, and these provisions prohibited the sale of drugs that were not registered or were presented in a form that misled the public.

The court said the applicant was also accused of illegally manufacturing spurious and unregistered drug products in connivance with his accomplices, in which regard the FIA had recovered two aluminium foils of tablets and other materials used for manufacturing these drugs.

The court said the applicant was also accused of carrying aluminium foils in a vehicle, and such drugs had been seized and reported to be spurious and counterfeit. The court said that the seizure memo, prima facie, shows that co-accused Abdul Wahab had revealed that the aluminium foil used for packaging the spurious medicine was supplied by the applicant.

The court said the applicant had been unable to provide any legal justification, and on the contrary, he had admitted to printing the foils without authorisation or licence. The court said that in such a situation, Section 23 of the Drugs Act deals with the sale of unregistered drugs, and it carries a potential sentence of up to 10 years under Section 27(1)(a), as this makes it a serious offence against public health.

The court said the applicant was arrested red-handed with a considerable quantity of incriminating material, and no plausible explanation was offered, and the recovery memo was supported by witnesses.

The court said the offence alleged against the applicant is punishable by imprisonment up to 10 years, and thus falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The court said the applicant failed to make a case for further inquiry or bail under Section 497(2) of the CrPC, and dismissed the application with the direction to the trial court to proceed with and conclude the trial within two months.