State v. Rafik Ahmad) Under Section

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that it has been passed in a mechanical manner without reciting the case of the complainant without recording any prima facie recording with regard to the applicability/ attraction of the penal sections. He seeks to rely upon the the judgement in SLP (Criminal) No.5067 of 2024, M/S J.M. Laboratories Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 30.1.2025. However, he submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.

8. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that form the perusal of the allegations contained in the complaint prima facie offences are made out and the case is triable, however, he could not dispute the fact that the summoning order has not been passed as per the mandate in M/S J.M. Laboratories (supra). He submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

10. The summoning order dated 11.11.2024 summoning the applicant under Section 18-A, 18(C)/ 27(b)(ii), 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act 1940 reads as under: आज यह पररवहद- " दणडनसय अनतगरत धहरह 27(b)(ii) पसतयत हहआ। अवलडकन टकयह गयह। पररवहद कक रप मम दजर रधजसटर हड। टवरद अनतगरत धहरह 18 (c), 18A औषधध एवट पसहधन सहमगस अधधटनयम कह पत अटभययक रफफक अहमद कक व धहरह 28 चस टटक पररवहदस लडक सकवक हथ। अतत बयहन अनतगरत धहरह दट०प०सट० कफ आवशयकतह नहह हथ। पररवहद कक अवलडकन सक टवटदत हडतह हथ टक उक औषधध एवट पसहधन सहमगस अधधटनयम कक कक बयहनत कफ भस आवशयकतह समसत पपतत कह अवलडकन टकयह, 200 अटभययक कड धहरह 18A, 18(c) / 27 (b)(ii), 28 अपरहध कक नहह हथ। धलए तलब कह आधहर पयहरप हथ। अतत धहरह 202 अतत उक अटभययक कड धहरह 18A, 18(c) / 27 (b)(ii) 28 अधधटनयम कक अपरहध मम टवचहरण तलब टकयह जहतस हथ। अटभययक कक 11.12.2024 कक धलए जहरस हत।" औषधध एवट पसहधन सहमगस टवरद समन टदनहटक

11. A perusal of the summoning order would reveal that the summoning order is non-speaking and unreasoned and it does not even recite the case of the complainant less to say prima facie application of the penal sections.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JM Laboratories (supra), para 9 whereof is quoted hereinunder.- "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. Since the summoning order itself is non-speaking and unreasoned and cryptic in nature, thus, it cannot be sustained.

14. The summoning order dated 11.11.2024 passed by learned Additional session Judge-I, Amroha is set aside.

15. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

16. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 21.08.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.

17. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case.

18. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

19. Instructions filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 A. Prajapati

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that it has been passed in a mechanical manner without reciting the case of the complainant without recording any prima facie recording with regard to the applicability/ attraction of the penal sections. He seeks to rely upon the the judgement in SLP (Criminal) No.5067 of 2024, M/S J.M. Laboratories Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 30.1.2025. However, he submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.

8. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that form the perusal of the allegations contained in the complaint prima facie offences are made out and the case is triable, however, he could not dispute the fact that the summoning order has not been passed as per the mandate in M/S J.M. Laboratories (supra). He submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

10. The summoning order dated 11.11.2024 summoning the applicant under Section 18-A, 18(C)/ 27(b)(ii), 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act 1940 reads as under: आज यह पररवहद- " दणडनसय अनतगरत धहरह 27(b)(ii) पसतयत हहआ। अवलडकन टकयह गयह। पररवहद कक रप मम दजर रधजसटर हड। टवरद अनतगरत धहरह 18 (c), 18A औषधध एवट पसहधन सहमगस अधधटनयम कह पत अटभययक रफफक अहमद कक व धहरह 28 चस टटक पररवहदस लडक सकवक हथ। अतत बयहन अनतगरत धहरह दट०प०सट० कफ आवशयकतह नहह हथ। पररवहद कक अवलडकन सक टवटदत हडतह हथ टक उक औषधध एवट पसहधन सहमगस अधधटनयम कक कक बयहनत कफ भस आवशयकतह समसत पपतत कह अवलडकन टकयह, 200 अटभययक कड धहरह 18A, 18(c) / 27 (b)(ii), 28 अपरहध कक नहह हथ। धलए तलब कह आधहर पयहरप हथ। अतत धहरह 202 अतत उक अटभययक कड धहरह 18A, 18(c) / 27 (b)(ii) 28 अधधटनयम कक अपरहध मम टवचहरण तलब टकयह जहतस हथ। अटभययक कक 11.12.2024 कक धलए जहरस हत।" औषधध एवट पसहधन सहमगस टवरद समन टदनहटक

11. A perusal of the summoning order would reveal that the summoning order is non-speaking and unreasoned and it does not even recite the case of the complainant less to say prima facie application of the penal sections.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JM Laboratories (supra), para 9 whereof is quoted hereinunder.- "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. Since the summoning order itself is non-speaking and unreasoned and cryptic in nature, thus, it cannot be sustained.

14. The summoning order dated 11.11.2024 passed by learned Additional session Judge-I, Amroha is set aside.

15. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

16. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 21.08.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.

17. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case.

18. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

19. Instructions filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 A. Prajapati