A doctor not exempt from obtaining drug sale license: FCCP

ISLAMABAD, Oct 05 (APP):The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan (FCCP) has held that the authority of a registered medical practitioner to prescribe or provide medicines to patients does not exempt the doctor from obtaining a license for the sale of drugs if he stocks medicines for sale or operates a medical store under the Drugs Act, 1976.

The ruling was given by a two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi while deciding a civil petition filed by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa against Dr Muhammad Rizwan Rajput and others.

In its detailed written judgment, the court observed that the Pharmacy Act, 1967 and the Drugs Act, 1976 regulate distinct legal fields. Section 31(4)(a) of the Pharmacy Act provides protection to a registered medical practitioner in prescribing or supplying medicines to his patients, but the provision could not be construed as a general exemption from the licensing requirement for sale of drugs under the Drugs Act, 1976.

The court noted that under Section 23(1)(c) of the Drugs Act, no person could sell drugs without a license, and the law contained no general exemption from this requirement for doctors.

The FCCP, however, distinguished between a doctor merely supplying medicines prescribed to his own patients and running a regular medical store or drug-selling business. The distinction, it said, had to be determined on the basis of evidence, including the quantity and nature of medicines stocked, purchase and supply records, details of sales, receipts, prescriptions and other relevant documents.

The court held that a drug inspector was empowered under the law to conduct inspections, obtain samples of medicines and seize drugs in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure. The record did not establish that the drug inspector concerned lacked lawful authority to take action.

The FCCP also examined a June 5, 2023 judgment of the Dera Ismail Khan Bench of the Peshawar High Court, through which proceedings against the doctors had been interfered with.

The court observed that issuance of a show-cause notice did not amount to a final punishment or a finding of guilt, but was part of the legal process through which the concerned person was given an opportunity to present his case and defence. In the absence of exceptional circumstances or a clear lack of lawful authority, it was not appropriate to halt proceedings at that stage through constitutional jurisdiction.

It clarified that restoration of the proceedings did not mean that the doctors had been held guilty. They would have full opportunity to produce prescriptions, purchase receipts, stock registers and other relevant records, while the competent authorities would decide the matter independently in accordance with law.