ISLAMABAD: Acquitting a former secretary law and a Grade-21 officer in a NAB reference, the IHC on Tuesday observed that the case made by the Bureau appears to be an exercise to receive an amount from pharmaceutical companies without any justiciable reason.
Arshad Farooq Faheem, the-then chairman of the Drug Pricing Committee, has been acquitted by the IHC after nine years of suffering at the hands of NAB, which initiated an inquiry against him in 2013, upgraded it to an investigation in 2015 and filed the reference in 2016. The IHC said in its judgment that there is not an iota of evidence to prosecute the officer.
The officer was arrested and put behind bars for seven months by NAB. He remained suspended till 2018. A reference was filed in June 2016 but till the officer’s recent acquittal by the IHC in 2022, NAB did not allow a trial to commence and even the charges against him could not be framed.
In 2019, the officer got a posting in the Ministry of Law and became the secretary law but was later made an OSD after the media asked how a NAB accused could become the secretary law.
While acquitting the officer, the IHC in its recent order noted that the sole authority for the registration, licensing, pricing, import and export of any drugs or their cancellation, increase or decrease, is DRAP, which was further endorsed and fixed by the federal government which can change or disagree with such pricing mechanisms or other regulatory regimes.
"But in these cases, the pharmaceutical companies allegedly earned some benefits and have entered into a plea bargain or VR and returned huge sums of money, which could not be considered a charge against the petitioner (Arshad Faheem), who was then Chairman of DPC in the fifth and sixth DPC meeting, though he was not all alone to settle the technical questions on the basis of record, data or other documents having fake or maneuvered record or managed by those companies as alleged by the NAB,” the court order said.
It added, “Both the laws i.e. Drugs Act, 1976 and DRAP Act, 2012 provide the concept of Appellate Board, the redressal of grievance of any party or any individual who is aggrieved with anything that falls within the regulatory regime of DRAP, even the offences have specifically been provided in those laws, but the same have not been applied in this case, as such, the entire case seems to be an exercise to receive the amount from the pharmaceutical companies not on the basis of any justiciable reason, even it is specifically provided in Drugs Act, 1976 that any incorrect or misleading information is punishable and cognizance should have been taken by the Drugs Court.”
Similarly, the court said, the indemnity provided in these special laws in terms of Section 38 of the Drugs Act, 1976 and Section 34 of the DRAP Act, 2012, has also not been taken care of by the NAB authorities or for that matter the federal government and the pricing mechanism has been criminalised without any basis.
“In view of above reasons, we are convinced that there is not an iota of evidence to prosecute the petitioner in any manner, who had performed his duties, though certain irregularities have been pointed out, but the same are not within the purview of criminal misconduct as required under Section 9(a)(iv)(vi)(ix) and (xii) of the NAO, 1999, especially when explanation comes into play through the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2019, as such, the instant reference is not proceedable and petitioner earns his acquittal, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges, per se, any other proceedings in the NAB are considered to be abuse of process of law.”
