IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.849 of 2019  and  
Criminal Petition No.850 of 2019  
(Against judgment dated 09.07.2019 of the 
Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, passed in 
Criminal Appeal Nos.191 of 2018) 
 
 
Aamir Shahzad 
(in Cr.P. No.849/2019) 
Qaiser Shahzad 
(in Cr.P. No.850/2019) 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State & another 
(in Cr.P. No.849/2019) 
The State  
(in Cr.P. No.850/2019) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Raja Rizwan Abbasi, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Mian Asghar Ali,  
 
Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan. 
 
Date of hearing: 
10.06.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Aamir Shahzad son of 
Talib Hussain and Qaisar Shahzad son of Muhammad Akram, 
petitioners, were returned a guilty verdict by the Drug Court Islamabad 
for commission of offences under sections 23(1)(a)(vii), 23(1)(c) and 
23(1)(i) of the Drugs Act, 1976; convicted under sections 27(1) and 27(4) 
of the Act ibid, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for  
5 & 3 years along with fine respectively or to undergo six months simple 
imprisonment in default thereof; the sentences were ordered to run 
concurrently; their appeals met with no better fate vide impugned 
judgment dated 9-7-2019, vires whereof, are being assailed through the 
captioned petitions; bound by a common thread, these are being 
decided through this single judgment.   
Criminal Petition No.849 of 2019  and  
Criminal Petition No.850 of 2019  
 
 
2
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Drug 
Inspector, Shabbir Ahmed (PW-1), had no authority to search the 
premises or to impound drugs and as such entire exercise is a nullity in 
the eye of law; it is further argued that there is nothing on the record to 
confirm that the impounded drugs were unregistered inasmuch as no 
such certification from the DRAP has been brought on record by the 
prosecution; his next grievance is that none from amongst the members 
of the Quality Control Board entered the witness-box and, thus, mere 
reliance by the Courts below on an affidavit purportedly submitted by 
the petitioners is far from being sufficient to drive home the charge; he 
blamed Dr. Shuja Nawaz to be the actual owner of the outlet, let off by 
the prosecution for considerations other than noble. The Law Officer 
has faithfully defended the impugned judgment.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Argument that Shabbir Ahmed, Drug Inspector (PW-1), 
lacked authority to carry out the raid and seize the contraband is 
entirely beside the mark; in the witness-box, he categorically asserted 
his status on the strength of Notification No.1(19)-Law/2004(Vol-III)-
578 dated  17th February, 2012 (Mark-A), a position uncontroverted 
during the trial. Section 18(d) of the Drugs Act, 1976 does not place any 
clog on the powers of Inspectors so as to “enter and search, with such 
assistance, if any, as he considers necessary, any building, vessel or 
place, in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Act or 
any rules has been or is being committed or may continue to be 
committed”. In exercise of powers vesting in the witness, he was well 
within the remit of law to seize unregistered drugs. These were secured 
vide inventory Ex.P1 to P-18 on Form-5 (Ex.PA), transmitted to the 
Quality Control Board Islamabad vide letter dated 12.9.2017; an 
exercise that required no additional authorization.  
Both the petitioners appeared before the Quality Control Board in 
response to show cause notice dated 25.9.2017, before whom Aamir 
Shahzad took the following position, in writing, depicted as Ex.PB  and 
Ex.PE, respectively:- 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.849 of 2019  and  
Criminal Petition No.850 of 2019  
 
 
3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Perusal of above exhibits confirms purchase of stamp papers by Aamir 
Shahzad, petitioner, from a stamp vendor, with his thumb impression 
affixed on its back while both of them signed and thumb marked the 
statements. Plea for the exclusion of Ex.PB & PE  from consideration on 
the ground of their admission in evidence being violative of procedure 
provided under section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 
does not hold water; before the Board, petitioners were neither being 
Criminal Petition No.849 of 2019  and  
Criminal Petition No.850 of 2019  
 
 
4
indicted nor called upon to plead guilty; the Board merely solicited their 
response to the complaint and furnished cause as to why they be not 
proceeded for contravention of the provisions of the Act ibid to comply 
with the procedural requirement, sine qua non to launch prosecution 
under the Act; by their own choice, they pledged future good conduct 
and took positions, seemingly voluntary, however, found by them 
embarrassing during the trial. Qaisar Shahzad petitioner was 
confronted by the trial Court with Ex.PE during his examination under 
section 342 of the Code ibid when he denied to have submitted any 
reply whereas Aamir Shahzad petitioner when confronted with his 
response evaded the answer. An obstinate bald denial or evasive 
response cannot override positive evidence. Similarly, the prosecution 
was not required to produce any member of Quality Control Board to 
join the witnesses to drive home the charge. The functions of the 
Quality Control Board are supervisory/regulatory in nature and as such 
for prosecution of an offence under the Act, the Drug Inspector himself 
can discharge the onus. The argument is otherwise irrelevant as the 
petitioners never opted to summon any member of the Board during the 
trial nor any prejudice has been alleged. The entire line of defence is 
unrealistically hyper technical. Likewise, no certification was required 
by the DRAP as all the registered medicines are officially listed by the 
Ministry of Health. Contrary to their counsel, the petitioners never 
blamed Dr. Shuja Nawaz as being the man behind the scene; according 
to their statements before the Quality Control Board, Dr. Shuja Nawaz 
was a qualified person employed by them, statedly absent during the 
raid.  View concurrently taken by the Courts below being well within the 
remit of law is not open to any legitimate exception. Petitions fail. Leave 
declined.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
10th June, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-