Summary: Bail denied --- The case pertains to the manufacturing of unregistered medicated cosmetics by SSI Marketing Network, with Amir Mahmood listed as the CEO. Facts: The prosecution claims that SSI Marketing Network, which deals in cosmetics, was inspected by the Drug Inspector in March 2024. During the inspection, the Inspector found medicated cosmetics without a valid manufacturing license. The products in question included Aneeza Gold Beauty Cream, Brido Luxury Gold Beauty Cream, Bio2You Cream, and Clobetasol propionate powder. These products were seized, and samples were sent for testing, which later confirmed the presence of allopathic drugs in the items. Amir Mahmood, the petitioner, argues that he is merely an employee and not responsible for the manufacturing process, attributing ownership of the company to Ijaz Ahmad. He claims that the case falls under the Pakistan General Cosmetics Act, 2023, not the Drugs Act. ----- Issues: 1) Whether the Drug Inspector lawfully conducted the inspection at SSI's premises. ----2) Whether Amir Mahmood, as an employee, can be held responsible for the alleged violations. ---3) Whether the manufacturing and sale of the seized products fall under the Drugs Act or the Pakistan General Cosmetics Act, 2023. ---4) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail based on the facts and law. ---- Holding and Legal Reasoning: Authority of the Drug Inspector: The court ruled that the Drug Inspector lawfully conducted the inspection under the Drugs Act, 1976. The seized products were medicated cosmetics, which contain allopathic drugs and fall under the scope of the DRAP Act, not the Pakistan General Cosmetics Act, 2023. Hence, the Petitioner’s argument that the raid was illegal was dismissed. ---- Petitioner’s Role in SSI: Although the Petitioner claimed to be merely an employee, the Prosecution presented evidence, including a Partnership Deed, suggesting that the Petitioner was a partner in SSI and thus responsible for its operations. The court found sufficient evidence indicating that Amir Mahmood shared the profits and liabilities of the firm, making him liable for its business activities. ----- Application of the Drugs Act vs. General Cosmetics Act: The court clarified that there is a distinction between general cosmetics and medicated cosmetics. The seized items, being medicated cosmetics, are governed by the Drugs Act and the DRAP Act, rendering the Petitioner’s reliance on the General Cosmetics Act inapplicable. ---- Pre-Arrest Bail: The court ruled that there was no credible evidence that the Petitioner was falsely implicated or that the arrest was for an ulterior motive. Therefore, the court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application, concluding that there was sufficient incriminating material to proceed against the Petitioner based on the available evidence. ---- Conclusion: The court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application, holding that the Petitioner, Amir Mahmood, was liable for the actions of SSI and that the Drug Inspector acted within his authority under the law. The court emphasized that the observations in this order were tentative and would not influence the trial court’s decision, which should be based on the merits of the evidence presented. ----- Key Legal Principles: A Drug Inspector can inspect any premises related to the manufacture of medicated cosmetics under the Drugs Act and DRAP Act. Being a nominee or an employee does not absolve one of liability if there is evidence of partnership and profit-sharing. Pre-arrest bail requires evidence of false implication or ulterior motive, which was not present in this case.

Summary: To regulate the products described in the DRAP Act, 2012, the respondent No.2 only wants that they may be enlisted with it so that they may regulate it as being an alternative medicine/therapeutic goods. While appellants would make an application for enlistment, it would certainly be without prejudice to above understanding and notwithstanding their stance, a proper scrutiny would still be undertaken by DRAP to adjudge it as a product/drug etc, to be enlisted within frame of law (act and rules), which order will then be conclusive, subject to a challenge within DRAP Act, 2012.

Summary: Petitions against black marketing and profiteering of masks-----The Assistant Commissioner (General) provided a compliance report regarding raids against hoarders of masks, resulting in the recovery of 5,93,630 masks, which were then distributed. The Additional Secretary of Health reported the distribution of essential medical supplies across Sindh's districts, with a list of hospitals attached. Concerns were raised about the proper distribution of masks in Civil Hospitals, prompting an inquiry.A copy of the Sindh Epidemic Diseases Act, 2014, was presented, empowering the government to take measures to prevent disease outbreaks. Restrictions imposed on various establishments and activities were outlined in orders issued on March 14 and 17, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.Another petition, C.P. No.D-1466/2020, filed by Abdul Jalil Khan Marwat, involved parties such as the Federation of Pakistan, PEMRA, DRAP, and the Province of Sindh. The DAG was directed to obtain replies from the Secretary of the Ministry of Interior and the Secretary of Health, Government of Pakistan.In C.P. No.D-1484/2020, concerns were raised about the hygienic conditions of a quarantine ward in Sukkur. While social media reports indicated inadequacies, the Additional Secretary of Health denied these claims. The Deputy Commissioner of Sukkur was instructed to inspect the quarantine ward and submit a report.