Ephedrine scam: Court orders ANF to submit evidence against former DG health

Accused maintains he allocated the controlled chemical in accordance with rules like his predecessor.


Mudassir Raja September 14, 2012
Ephedrine scam: Court orders ANF to submit evidence against former DG health

RAWALPINDI:


The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday directed the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) to produce evidence within two weeks against a former director general (DG) health, an accused in the ephedrine quota case.


Dr Asad Hafeez, who was accused of illegally allocating excess quota for ephedrine, had requested the LHC for post-arrest bail.

Hafeez’s lawyer, Muhammad Ishaq Khan requested the court to grant his client bail as he had allowed the conversion of 2,400kg ephedrine strictly in accordance with the rules.

Justice Shahid Hameed Dar and Justice Mahmood Maqbol Bajwa of the LHC’s Rawalpindi bench issued notices to  ANF and directed it to produce the relevant record in court. The former DG said his 2010 order was not unprecedented as his predecessor, Dr Rasheed Jumma an accused-turned-approver in the same case, had allocated the controlled chemical to two pharmaceutical companies.

Dr Hafeez said ANF investigators had no proof he obtained monetary benefits for allowing the conversions as DG health.

Raising objections over the delay in the registration of the case, the accused doctor said he had notified ANF about the conversion so they could ensure the drug was not misused but the force filed the case after nearly two years.

Dr Hafeez argued that he suffered from a heart ailment and backache and he could not live in jail without proper medication. He requested the court to grant him bail as he would attend court proceedings and co-operate with the investigation agency.

The trial court had rejected the bail plea of Dr Hafeez on September 6.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 14th, 2012.

 

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ