State of U. P. through Drug Inspector v. Shivam) under The Drugs and Cosmetics Act
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142259 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13477 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Mishra,Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Shri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikash Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus, with the
Facts
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 entire proceedings of complaint Case No. 17 of 2023 (State of U. P. through Drug Inspector Vs. Shivam) under The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Sahawar, District Kasganj, pending in the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Room No. 1, Kasganj as well as summoning order dated 19.09.2024 and bailable warrant dated 27.03.2025 passed by Court of Additional District and Session Judge, Room No. 1, Kasganj. 4. The case of the applicant is that the brother of the applicant, namely, Sunderam Verma holds a drug license for the purpose of selling, stocking or exhibiting or distribute by wholesale of medicines and the applicant is also associated with the same. Allegation is that the opposite party no. 2 visited the store of the brother of the applicant and took some packets of medicine and the opposite party no. 2 pressurized the applicant to sign over the certain papers, else criminal prosecution would be lodged. With respect to certain alleged irregularities, three FIRs came to be lodged being FIR No. 0115 of 2022, under Section 420, 275 and 276 IPC, FIR No. 0116 of 2022, under Section 8/22 of N.D.P.S. Act and third FIR No. 0117 of 2022, under Section 3/25 Arms Act. A fictitious recovery memo was also prepared by the SHO along with police officials wherein it was alleged that as per the information so received by the police officials through an informer that a person having generic medicine is coming from Kasganj side and he is to sell the medicine at Patyali. On the basis of the said inspection, certain recoveries were sought to be made and thereafter a complaint came to be lodged under Section 18/27, 18A, 17B, 28-A, 28-B of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 by the opposite party no. 2, pursuant whereto the applicant came to be summoned on 19.09.2024. 5. Questioning the said order, the applicant has been filed the present application.
Legal Reasoning
complainant and 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. 7. Learned State Law Officer 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 9. 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: " पततवलल पपश हहई। पततवलल आज वतसतप बहस तलबल ननयत हह। पततवलल पर पररवतदल कक ओर सप नवदतन अपर जजलत शतसककय अजधवकत उपसससत । ससनत तसत पततवलल कत अवललकन नकयत। पततवलल कप अवललकन सप नवनदत हह नक पररवतद पत जलजखत रप सप औषजध एएव पसतधन सतमगल अजधननयम 1940 कप अनतररत औषजध ननरलकक जल नक ललक सपवक हह उसकप दतरत अपनप पदलय पतरतयय कत ननवरहन करतप हहयप पसतसत नकयत रयत हह। ऐसल दशत मम पररवतदल यत सतसकयय कक परलकत करतयत जतनत आवशयक नहह हह। अतत अनभ० नशवम जररयप सममन तलब हल। पततवलल वतसतप हतजजरल नदनतएक 10.10.2024 कक धतरत 32 (1) कल पपश हल।" 10. 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. 11. 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." 12. Since the summoning order itself is non-speaking and unreasoned and cryptic in nature, thus, it cannot be sustained. 13. The summoning order dated 19.09.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Room No. 1, Kasganj is set aside. 14. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law. 15. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 05.09.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.
Arguments
6. 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
Decision
16. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad