M/S J.M. Laboratories v. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on

consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned summoning order dated

21.08.2024, passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad in Complaint Case No. 10499 of 2024, State Vs. M/s Pradeep Singh and another, Under Section 17B, 18 (a) (i), 18A, 18B, 27 (C), 28, 28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad.

4. The case of the applicant is that the applicants happened to be M/s Pradeep Medical Store situate in Faijbag Kaimganj Road, Near Faijbag Tiraha, Kuinyakhera, Faijbag, Farrukhabad having a registered medical store with a statutory licence. It is alleged that on 22.03.2024, an inspection was conducted by the opposite party no. 2 (team), wherein the following was found: "(i) DOXIM 20 DT TABLETS (CEFPODOXIME PROXETIL DISPERSIBLE TABLETS) B.No. MWC-12DC5, M/D-02/2023, E/D-01/2025, MFDBY-M/S. HOURS PHARMACEUTICALS, SEC-303, 3RD FLOOR, MARKET MANIMAJRA, CHANDIGARH 160101. (ii) PRESEF-200 LB TABLETS B.NO.RHCT-12BC1, M/D-01/2023, E/D- 12/2024, MFDBY-M/S. PRAGTI REMEDIES PLOT NO.143 F.S. ROAD LINK, GUWAHTI ASSAM-781008. (iii) C. CEF-AZ TABLETS B.NO.SPRT-012JF1, M/D-01/2023, E/D-01/2025 MFDBY-M/S. PRAGTI REMEDIES PLOT NO.143 F.S. ROAD LINK, GUWAHTI ASSAM-781008"

5. A Form No. 17 was also prepared and thereafter the sample was drawn and the complainant was sent the sample before the Government Analyst (Uttar Pradesh) Sector-C, Aligarh Lucknow (UP) on 22.03.2024 for testing and a report came to be issued on

10.05.2024 that the same was not of the standard quality as per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a show cause notice was issued to the applicants on 24.05.2024, to which a reply was submitted on

29.05.2024 and a complaint came to be preferred on 20.07.2024 against the applicants for the offences under Sections 17B, 18 (a) (i), 18A, 18B, 27 (C), 28, 28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Thereafter the applicant came to be summoned on 21.08.2024.

6. Questioning the said order, the applicant has been filed the present application.

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 21.08.2024 summoning the applicant under Section 17B, 18(A)(i) 18A, 18B 27(C), 28, 28A Drug and Cosmetics Act 1940 reads as under: आज औषधध ननररकक ददरद पररवदद नवरद अनभययकगण पदरप धससह, M/S " सटटर, अनतगरत धदरद 17B, 18(A)(i) 18A, 18B 27(C), 28, 28A, सदमगर अधधननयम 1940 हहआ नक पसजरकक त हट । अनभययकगण कम हट।" पदरप ममनडकल औषधध एवस पसदधन ददधखल नकयद गयद। समसत पपतत कद अवलटकन नकयद। आदमश नवरद सममन नदनदसक 05.09.2024 ननयतकर जदरर

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 21.08.2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad in Complaint Case No. 10499 of 2024 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 04.09.2025 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 :- 12.8.2025 A. Prajapati ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned summoning order dated

21.08.2024, passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad in Complaint Case No. 10499 of 2024, State Vs. M/s Pradeep Singh and another, Under Section 17B, 18 (a) (i), 18A, 18B, 27 (C), 28, 28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad.

4. The case of the applicant is that the applicants happened to be M/s Pradeep Medical Store situate in Faijbag Kaimganj Road, Near Faijbag Tiraha, Kuinyakhera, Faijbag, Farrukhabad having a registered medical store with a statutory licence. It is alleged that on 22.03.2024, an inspection was conducted by the opposite party no. 2 (team), wherein the following was found: "(i) DOXIM 20 DT TABLETS (CEFPODOXIME PROXETIL DISPERSIBLE TABLETS) B.No. MWC-12DC5, M/D-02/2023, E/D-01/2025, MFDBY-M/S. HOURS PHARMACEUTICALS, SEC-303, 3RD FLOOR, MARKET MANIMAJRA, CHANDIGARH 160101. (ii) PRESEF-200 LB TABLETS B.NO.RHCT-12BC1, M/D-01/2023, E/D- 12/2024, MFDBY-M/S. PRAGTI REMEDIES PLOT NO.143 F.S. ROAD LINK, GUWAHTI ASSAM-781008. (iii) C. CEF-AZ TABLETS B.NO.SPRT-012JF1, M/D-01/2023, E/D-01/2025 MFDBY-M/S. PRAGTI REMEDIES PLOT NO.143 F.S. ROAD LINK, GUWAHTI ASSAM-781008"

5. A Form No. 17 was also prepared and thereafter the sample was drawn and the complainant was sent the sample before the Government Analyst (Uttar Pradesh) Sector-C, Aligarh Lucknow (UP) on 22.03.2024 for testing and a report came to be issued on

10.05.2024 that the same was not of the standard quality as per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a show cause notice was issued to the applicants on 24.05.2024, to which a reply was submitted on

29.05.2024 and a complaint came to be preferred on 20.07.2024 against the applicants for the offences under Sections 17B, 18 (a) (i), 18A, 18B, 27 (C), 28, 28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Thereafter the applicant came to be summoned on 21.08.2024.

6. Questioning the said order, the applicant has been filed the present application.

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 21.08.2024 summoning the applicant under Section 17B, 18(A)(i) 18A, 18B 27(C), 28, 28A Drug and Cosmetics Act 1940 reads as under: आज औषधध ननररकक ददरद पररवदद नवरद अनभययकगण पदरप धससह, M/S " सटटर, अनतगरत धदरद 17B, 18(A)(i) 18A, 18B 27(C), 28, 28A, सदमगर अधधननयम 1940 हहआ नक पसजरकक त हट । अनभययकगण कम हट।" पदरप ममनडकल औषधध एवस पसदधन ददधखल नकयद गयद। समसत पपतत कद अवलटकन नकयद। आदमश नवरद सममन नदनदसक 05.09.2024 ननयतकर जदरर

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 21.08.2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad in Complaint Case No. 10499 of 2024 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 04.09.2025 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 :- 12.8.2025 A. Prajapati ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad