1

FORENSIC PHARMACY

WHICH IS CALLED DRUG ACT?

1976
HOW MANY SECTIONS ARE THERE IN DRUG ACT 1976?
45 SECTIONS ARE PRESENT IS DRUG ACT 1976
HOW MANY CHAPTERS IS A PART OF DRUG ACT 1976?
THERE ARE 5 CHAPTERS OF THE DRUG ACT 1976

CHAPTER NO 1 INTORDUCTION

CHAPTER NO 2 ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER NO 3 PROHIBITIONS

CHAPTER NO 4 OFFENCES, PENALTIES AND PROCEDURE OFFENCES

CHAPTER NO 1 INTRODUCTION

SECTION NO 1, SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMERICEMENT

SUB-SECTION 1 THE ACT MAY BE CALLED THE DRUG ACT 1976

SUB-SECTION 2 IT EXTENDS TO THE WHOLE PAKISTAN

SUB-SECTION 3 IT SHALL COME INTO FORCE AT ONCE

WHAT ARE OBJECTIONABLE AND aUNDESIRABLE ADVERTISEMENTS

IN RECENT YEARS THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF

OBJECTIONABLE ADVERTISEMENTS PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPER OR
MAGAZINE OR OTHERWISE RELATING TO ALLEGED CURVES FOR VENERAL
DISCASES.

SEXUAL STIULANTS AND CURES FOR CERTAIN OTHER DEADLY DISOASES

ADVERTISEMENTS TENDED TO CAUSE THE IGNORANT AND UNWAZRY TO

RESORT, TO QUACKS WHO INDULGE IN SUCH ADVERTISEMENTS FOR
2

TREATMENT, WHICH CAUSE GREAT HARM.IT WAS THEREFORE

NECESSUARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO PUT A STOP TO SUCH
UNDESIRABLE ADVERTISEMENTS
QUACKS MEAN ‘NAKLI DOCTOR’, RESORT ‘CHARA JOI KARNA

COMPRESSION OF 2 ACT WITH DRUG ACT 1976

DRUG ACT 1930 WHICH STILL HOLDS THE FIELD AND THE DRUG ACT 1940
HAS OFFCOURSE REPEALED AND SUPERSEDED BY THIS ACT, A COMPAISION
OF THE 2 ACTS WILL SHOW THAT THE PRESENT ACT IS MUCH MORE
EXHAUSTIVE AND COVERS A LARGE NO OF NEW GROUNDS LEGISLATION IN
RESPECT OF WHICH WAS AN IMPERATIVE NECESSITY DUE TOOO ADVANCE
OF TIMES AND CHANGE OF TACTICS BY MANUFATURERERS AND DEALERS
OF DRUGS IN JONTLY MAKING BEST USE OF THEIR PROFESSION TO THEIR
PERSSONEL ADVANTAGE AND GAIN REGARDLESS OF THE WELFARE OF THE
NATION AS A WHOLE.

PREAMBLE:-

MEANS SUMMARY REGISTRATION

UNDER THE DRUG ACT 1976 WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE DEFENSE AGAINST
THE INFRIGNMENT (KHILAF WARZI) REGULATED BY THE PATIENTS AND
DESIGS ACT 1911

ISLAMISATION OF LAW:-

THE DRUG ACT 1976 IS NOT REPUGANT TO SHARIA

INVESTIGATION

THE POLICE OFFICERS UNDER THE DRUG ACT 1976 EITHER UPON THEIR
OWN INFORMATION OR ON INFORMATION GIVEN UNDER SECTION 154
CRIMINICAL PROCEFURE CODE 1898 IRRESPECTIVE OF FACT WHETHER THE
INFORMANT WAS DRUGS INSPECTOR OR SOMEONE ELSE
3

RENEWAL OF LICENCE UNDER DRUG ACT 1976

THE PETITIONER MEANS (ARZI GUZAR) A MANUFACTURER OF THE DRUGS:-

UNDER THE DRUGS ACT 1976 SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL
OF LOCENCE UNDER NEW LAW AS REQUIRED BY RULES, PETITIONER
HAVING BEEN DEALT WITH LEFT HANDEDLY AND ADVERSE ACTION HAVING
BEEN RAHER IRRESPONISBLY IN REJECTING PETITIONERS APPLICATION

APPLICATION FIELD BY PETITIONER HEARD BY APPELLATE BOARD

INCLUDING TWO SUCH MEMBERS WHO COMPLAINED OF HAVING NOT
BEEN TREATED WITH RESPECT BY PETITIONER THROUGH MARTIAL LAW
ANTHORITIES IN CONSEQUENCE WHERE OF PETITIONER ARRESTED AND
REMAINED IN JAIL UNIT RELEASED ON BAIL. JUSTICE NOT ONLY TO BE
DONE BUT HAS MANIFESTLY TO APPEAR BEING DONE, ORDER OF THE
APPELLATE BOARD NOT WITH AUTHORITY. THE CASE WAS REMITTED BACK
TO BE DECIDED.KEEPING IN VIEW BACKGROUND OF THE CDASE, FACTS AS
WLL AS LAW.

ADMISSIBILITY OF ADMITTING EXPENSES

ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED EXPENDITURE SALE PROMOTION

EXPENSES INCURRED IN EXCESS OF 5 % OF THE TURN OVER (HAWALY
KARNA) IN VIOLATION OF RUPPEES 12 AND 35 OF THE DRUGS LICENCING
REGISTRATION AND ADVERTISING RULES 1976 ADMISIBILITY PENALTY
(JURMANA) PROVIDED UNDER THE SAID RULE HELD COULD NOT BE
EXTANDED TO THE PRONSIONS OF INCOME TAX ORDINANCE AS NO SUCH
PENALTY HAD BEEN PROVIDED IN THE ORDINACE 1995.

NATURE OF PRODUCT
4

HEXA CHLOROPHENE LIQUID SOAP OF NATURE OF PRODUCT COULD BE

GUAGED FROM PROPERTIES OF COMPUOND AND PRIMARY USE OF THE
PRODUCT.HEXA CHLOROPHENE SOAP CONTAINING 0.25% OF HEXA
CHLOROPHEN AND 12% SOLUTION POTTASSIUM SOAP. REGISTERED IN THE
NATIONAL PHARMULARY AS DRUG AND PRIMARLY USED FOR CASE AND
TREATMENT OF SKIN WAS ESSIENTALLY MEDICAL DRUG SUCH PRODUCT
COULD NOT BE TEATED AS ARTICLE OF PERFUMERY COSMETICS OR TOILET
PREPARATION 1989.

OFFENCE UNDER THE ACT: =

OFFENCE UNDER THE ACT CAN BE INVESTIGATED BY POLICE OFFICER

EITHER UPON HIS OWN INFORMATION OR UPON INFORMATION GIVEN TO
HIM UNDER SECTION 154 CRIMINAL PROCEFURE CODES 1898.

THE ALLEGED (ILZAM LAGANA) OFFECNE WAS COMMITTED PRIOR TO

INFORCEMENT OF THE DRUG ACT OF 1976. THE DRUG COURT HAD NO
JURISDICTION TO TAKE CONGIZATION OF SUCH OFFENCE. OFFENCE WAS
COMMITTED UNDER THE DRUG ACT 1940 PROVISION ( FARHAM KARNA)
OF NEW LAW DID NOT PERMIT THE DRUGS COURT TO TAKE COGNIZANCE
OF OFFENCE COMMITTED UNDER THE ACT 1940 PROCEEDINGS WERE
ILLEGAL PROSECUTION MEAN (MUQADMA) COULD TAKE STOPS TO REFER
CASE TO A COURT OF COMPTANT JURISDICTION 1980 .ACT APPLY TO
PROVINCIALLY ADMINISTERED TRIBAL AREAS OF BALOCHISTAN.

THE GOVERNER OF BALOCHISTAN WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT

IS PLEASED TO DIRECT THAT THE DRUG ACT 1976 AND THE RULES MADE
THERE UNDER AS IN FORCE IN THE PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTIFICATION SHALL APPLY TO THE
PROVICALLY ADMINISTERED TRIBAL AREA OF BALOCHISTAN
5

SECTION 2 APPLICATIONS OF OTHER LAWS NOT BARRED (PABANDI

LAGANA, ROKNA)

THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO AND NOT IN

DEROGATION OF THE DANGEROUS ACT 1930 AND ANY OTHER LAW FOR
THE TIME BEING IN FORCE

SECTION 3 DEFINATIONS

CHAPTER NO TWO

ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT

4. REGULATION AND PROHIBITION OF IMPORT ETC OF DRUGS

THE FEDERAL GOVERNEMENT SHALL REGULATE THE IMPORT AND EXPORT

OF DRUGS IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND FOR THAT PURPOSE MAY
MAKE SUCH ORDERS AND ISSUE SUCH DIRECTIONS TO THE IMPORTERS
AND EXPORTERS AS IT MAY DEEM FIT.

5. REGULATION OF MANUFACTURES OF DRUGS

THE GRANT OF LICENCES TO MANUFACTURE DRUGS SHALL BE REGULATE

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURE AS MAY BE
PRESCRIBED.

BY A CENTRAL LICENCING BOARD TO BE THE SET UP BY THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT AND THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT..AS MAY BE
PRESCRIBED

SUPRIOUS DRUG MEANING

MEDICINE RECOVERED FROM ACCUSED WHICH HE WAS SELLING AT HIS

SHOP, PURPORTED TO BE THE DRUG AND SHICH ACCORDING TO THE
CHEMICAL ANALYYSERS REPROT contained on lactose and starch which
6

meant that it had no active ingredient of the drugs held drug in question
was deregistered and spurious drugs in circumstances.