High Court

2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State.

3. This Court on 26.05.2025 had sought instructions from the learned AGA. Today, instructions have been forwarded under the signature of Assistant Commissioner, (Food-II) dated 03.06.2025 is taken on record.

4. A statement has been made by learned State Law Officer that he does not propose to file any response and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

5. The case of the applicants is that the opposite party no. 2 had inspected the resident of the applicant on 18.09.2024 at 3:30 O' clock. The inspecting team asked the applicants to show the licence. Inspection was conducted and inspection report was also prepared on 18.09.2024 and the samples drawn of Paneer by the opposite party no. 2 was sent for medical examination to the Government Public Analyst Laboratory, Lucknow and a food analyst under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was appointed. The sample so collected was put to analysis and the milk fat was found to be 41.3% which was not less than 50% and moisture was found to be 52.6 which is not more than 60% and the sample was not found to be in conformance. A notice came to be issued on 11.11.2024 and applicants preferred an appeal on 28.02.2025 seeking permission for collecting the food samples for examination of the second part under Section 46(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which is stated to be pending. The Food Preservation Officer, Ghaziabad who had taken the sample of Paneer from the applicant no. 2 issued a receipt and thereafter, a complaint came to be preferred on 11.02.2025 under Sections 26(2)(ii&i), 3(1)(zx) and 3(1)(zz)(iv)/51 & 59(i) F.S.S. Act, 2006, P.S. Nandgram, District Ghaziabad. On 13.02.2025 the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad proceeded to summon the applicants.

6. Questioning the summoning order, the applicants have filed the present application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the complaint itself was not maintainable and the applicants could not have been summoned on the basis of the documents available on record, however, according to the learned counsel for the applicants the fundamental question which goes to the root of the matter is that the summoning order is cryptic, non speaking, unreasoned and even does not recite the case of the complainant. He seeks to rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S. JM Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127. According to him summoning order be set aside, matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

8. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that from the allegations contained in the complaint prima facie offences are made out, however, he could not dispute the fact that the summoning order is cryptic and it has not been passed as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in JM Laboratories (supra).

9. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

10. The summoning order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad reads as under.- "आज यह पररिववाद खवाघ ससुरिकवा अधधिकवारिरी गवाधजयवाबवाद दवारिवा अभभियसुक्त 1-ममोहन धससिंह 2-M/s गग्रेड ररिसरर 3- गगन गगर कग्रे भवरूद्ध धिवारिवा 51 व 59 (i) F.S.S. Act कग्रे अन्र्तगत पवाप्त हहआ पपतमो कवा अवलमोकन भकयवा अभभियसुक्त कग्रे भवरूद्ध उक्त धिवारिवा मम ससिंजवान धलयग्रे जवानग्रे कवा आधिवारि पयवारप्त हहै HCOUR ससिंजवान धलयवा गयवा दज्ज रिधजस्टरि हमो. अभभि० कग्रे नवाम सम्मन भदनवासिंक 02.04.2025 कग्रे धलयग्रे जवारिरी हमो।"

11. A close reading of the summoning order would reveal that the same is cryptic non speaking and he does not even decide the case of the complainant and there is no satisfaction accorded of the allegation of the penal provisions under which the applicants have summoned. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S. JM Laboratories (supra) had the occasion to consider the said aspect and it was observed as under.- "9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non- speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood U Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others and Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."

13. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 13.02.2025 is set aside, matter is remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh summoning order strictly in accordance with law taking into account each and every aspect of matter.

14. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of.

15. Since the summoning order is cryptic and has been without recording any, prima facie, satisfaction about the application of the penal sections and it is non speaking and not as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in JM Laboratories (supra), thus, the summoning order dated 13.02.2025 is set aside, matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

16. For facilitation, the certified copy of the order passed today shall be furnished to the court below by 25.07.2025 by the applicants as well as by the learned AGA. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Rajesh

2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State.

3. This Court on 26.05.2025 had sought instructions from the learned AGA. Today, instructions have been forwarded under the signature of Assistant Commissioner, (Food-II) dated 03.06.2025 is taken on record.

4. A statement has been made by learned State Law Officer that he does not propose to file any response and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

5. The case of the applicants is that the opposite party no. 2 had inspected the resident of the applicant on 18.09.2024 at 3:30 O' clock. The inspecting team asked the applicants to show the licence. Inspection was conducted and inspection report was also prepared on 18.09.2024 and the samples drawn of Paneer by the opposite party no. 2 was sent for medical examination to the Government Public Analyst Laboratory, Lucknow and a food analyst under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was appointed. The sample so collected was put to analysis and the milk fat was found to be 41.3% which was not less than 50% and moisture was found to be 52.6 which is not more than 60% and the sample was not found to be in conformance. A notice came to be issued on 11.11.2024 and applicants preferred an appeal on 28.02.2025 seeking permission for collecting the food samples for examination of the second part under Section 46(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which is stated to be pending. The Food Preservation Officer, Ghaziabad who had taken the sample of Paneer from the applicant no. 2 issued a receipt and thereafter, a complaint came to be preferred on 11.02.2025 under Sections 26(2)(ii&i), 3(1)(zx) and 3(1)(zz)(iv)/51 & 59(i) F.S.S. Act, 2006, P.S. Nandgram, District Ghaziabad. On 13.02.2025 the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad proceeded to summon the applicants.

6. Questioning the summoning order, the applicants have filed the present application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the complaint itself was not maintainable and the applicants could not have been summoned on the basis of the documents available on record, however, according to the learned counsel for the applicants the fundamental question which goes to the root of the matter is that the summoning order is cryptic, non speaking, unreasoned and even does not recite the case of the complainant. He seeks to rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S. JM Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127. According to him summoning order be set aside, matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

8. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that from the allegations contained in the complaint prima facie offences are made out, however, he could not dispute the fact that the summoning order is cryptic and it has not been passed as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in JM Laboratories (supra).

9. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

10. The summoning order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad reads as under.- "आज यह पररिववाद खवाघ ससुरिकवा अधधिकवारिरी गवाधजयवाबवाद दवारिवा अभभियसुक्त 1-ममोहन धससिंह 2-M/s गग्रेड ररिसरर 3- गगन गगर कग्रे भवरूद्ध धिवारिवा 51 व 59 (i) F.S.S. Act कग्रे अन्र्तगत पवाप्त हहआ पपतमो कवा अवलमोकन भकयवा अभभियसुक्त कग्रे भवरूद्ध उक्त धिवारिवा मम ससिंजवान धलयग्रे जवानग्रे कवा आधिवारि पयवारप्त हहै HCOUR ससिंजवान धलयवा गयवा दज्ज रिधजस्टरि हमो. अभभि० कग्रे नवाम सम्मन भदनवासिंक 02.04.2025 कग्रे धलयग्रे जवारिरी हमो।"

11. A close reading of the summoning order would reveal that the same is cryptic non speaking and he does not even decide the case of the complainant and there is no satisfaction accorded of the allegation of the penal provisions under which the applicants have summoned. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S. JM Laboratories (supra) had the occasion to consider the said aspect and it was observed as under.- "9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non- speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood U Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others and Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."

13. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 13.02.2025 is set aside, matter is remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh summoning order strictly in accordance with law taking into account each and every aspect of matter.

14. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of.

15. Since the summoning order is cryptic and has been without recording any, prima facie, satisfaction about the application of the penal sections and it is non speaking and not as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in JM Laboratories (supra), thus, the summoning order dated 13.02.2025 is set aside, matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

16. For facilitation, the certified copy of the order passed today shall be furnished to the court below by 25.07.2025 by the applicants as well as by the learned AGA. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Rajesh