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

1. Heard Sri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. This Court on 16.07.2025 had sought instruction from learned AGA.

3. Today learned AGA has filed instruction under the Signatures of the Durg Inspector, Amroha. He submits that he does not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of documents available on record.

4. This is an application U/s 528 BNSS filed for quashing the summoning order dated 21.01.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in complaint case no. 978 of 2025 (State vs. Prakash Chand), U/s 18(A), 18 (c)/ 27(B) (ii) & 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940, P.S. Rahra, District Amroha.

5. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood preferred by the opposite party no.2 on 24.01.2025 U/s 18(A) (i), 18 (c)/ 27(c), 27(B) (ii) & 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the samples were drawn which was sent to the laboratory on 02.08.2024 but the permission for custody of the ceased medicine U/s 23 (v) (b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act dated 03.08.2024 and according to the applicant, as per the case of the prosecution the samples is not as per specification. Thereafter the applicant came to be summoned on 21.01.2025 under section 18(A) (i), 18 (c)/ 27(c), 27(B) (ii) & 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act.

6. Questioning the summoning order, the applicant has filed present application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though there are several grounds which shows that the offences have not been committed by the applicant and no offence is made out from the complaint but the fundamental and the crucial ground which goes to the root of the matter is that the summoning order is non speaking and unreasoned and it does even take recite the case of the complainant. Reliance has been placed upon the case of in SLP (Criminal) No.5067 of 2024, M/S J.M. Laboratories Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 30.1.2025. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

8. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that from the allegations contained in the complaint, prima facie offences are made out an the case is triable. However, he could not dispute the fact that the summoning order does not recite the case of the complainant and the same is non speaking, unreasoned. He thus submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

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

10. The summoning order dated 21.01.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha reads as under: "21.01.2025 आज यह पररववद- दणडननय अनतररत धवरव 27 (c), 27 (b) (ii) अधधभनयम कव पसतयत हहआ। अवललकन भकयव रयव। पररववद क मम दजर रधजसटर हल। भवरद अनतररत धवरव 18(c), 18A औषधध एवव पसवधन सवमगन पत अभभययक पकवश चनद कक व धवरव 28 चच वभक पररववदन ललक सववक अतत बयवन अनतररत धवरव बन०एन०एस०एस० कक आवशयकतव नहह। पररववद कक अवललकन सक भवभदत हलतव हह औषधध एवव पसवधन धलए तलब भकयक जवनक कव आधवर पयवरप हह। अतत धवरव समसत पपतत कव अवललकन भकयव, 223 भक उक अभभययक कल धवरव 18A 18(c)/27(c), 27(b) (ii), 28 सवमगन अधधभनयम कक अपरवध कक बन०एन०एस०एस० कक . 225 बयवनत कक भन आवशयकतव नहह हह। अतत उक अभभययक कल धवरव 18A, 18(c)/27(c), 27 (b)(ii), 28 सवमगन अधधभनयम कक अपरवध मम भवचवरण हकतय तलब भकयव जवतव हह। अभभययक कक समन भदनववक 28.02.2025 कक धलए जवरन हत।" औषधध एवव पसवधन भवरद

11. A close reading of the summoning order would reveal that the summoning order has been passed without recording any satisfaction regarding the attraction of the penal section and further the same is non speaking, unreasoned and it does not recite the case of the complainant less to say about prima-facie application of the penal provisions. In the case of J.M Lab (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court 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."

12. Since the aforesaid aspect is completely lacking, thus the summoning order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the application disposed of with the following terms: a. The order dated 21.01.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in complaint case no. 978 of 2025 (State vs. Prakash Chand), U/s 18(A), 18 (c)/ 27(B) (ii) & 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940, P.S. Rahra, District Amroha is set aside. b The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order . c. For facilitation in speedy disposal, the parties shall place this order before the court below by 05.08.2025.

13. The instructions marked as Appendix- A. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. This Court on 16.07.2025 had sought instruction from learned AGA.

3. Today learned AGA has filed instruction under the Signatures of the Durg Inspector, Amroha. He submits that he does not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of documents available on record.

4. This is an application U/s 528 BNSS filed for quashing the summoning order dated 21.01.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in complaint case no. 978 of 2025 (State vs. Prakash Chand), U/s 18(A), 18 (c)/ 27(B) (ii) & 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940, P.S. Rahra, District Amroha.

5. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood preferred by the opposite party no.2 on 24.01.2025 U/s 18(A) (i), 18 (c)/ 27(c), 27(B) (ii) & 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the samples were drawn which was sent to the laboratory on 02.08.2024 but the permission for custody of the ceased medicine U/s 23 (v) (b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act dated 03.08.2024 and according to the applicant, as per the case of the prosecution the samples is not as per specification. Thereafter the applicant came to be summoned on 21.01.2025 under section 18(A) (i), 18 (c)/ 27(c), 27(B) (ii) & 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act.

6. Questioning the summoning order, the applicant has filed present application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though there are several grounds which shows that the offences have not been committed by the applicant and no offence is made out from the complaint but the fundamental and the crucial ground which goes to the root of the matter is that the summoning order is non speaking and unreasoned and it does even take recite the case of the complainant. Reliance has been placed upon the case of in SLP (Criminal) No.5067 of 2024, M/S J.M. Laboratories Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 30.1.2025. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

8. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that from the allegations contained in the complaint, prima facie offences are made out an the case is triable. However, he could not dispute the fact that the summoning order does not recite the case of the complainant and the same is non speaking, unreasoned. He thus submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

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

10. The summoning order dated 21.01.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha reads as under: "21.01.2025 आज यह पररववद- दणडननय अनतररत धवरव 27 (c), 27 (b) (ii) अधधभनयम कव पसतयत हहआ। अवललकन भकयव रयव। पररववद क मम दजर रधजसटर हल। भवरद अनतररत धवरव 18(c), 18A औषधध एवव पसवधन सवमगन पत अभभययक पकवश चनद कक व धवरव 28 चच वभक पररववदन ललक सववक अतत बयवन अनतररत धवरव बन०एन०एस०एस० कक आवशयकतव नहह। पररववद कक अवललकन सक भवभदत हलतव हह औषधध एवव पसवधन धलए तलब भकयक जवनक कव आधवर पयवरप हह। अतत धवरव समसत पपतत कव अवललकन भकयव, 223 भक उक अभभययक कल धवरव 18A 18(c)/27(c), 27(b) (ii), 28 सवमगन अधधभनयम कक अपरवध कक बन०एन०एस०एस० कक . 225 बयवनत कक भन आवशयकतव नहह हह। अतत उक अभभययक कल धवरव 18A, 18(c)/27(c), 27 (b)(ii), 28 सवमगन अधधभनयम कक अपरवध मम भवचवरण हकतय तलब भकयव जवतव हह। अभभययक कक समन भदनववक 28.02.2025 कक धलए जवरन हत।" औषधध एवव पसवधन भवरद

11. A close reading of the summoning order would reveal that the summoning order has been passed without recording any satisfaction regarding the attraction of the penal section and further the same is non speaking, unreasoned and it does not recite the case of the complainant less to say about prima-facie application of the penal provisions. In the case of J.M Lab (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court 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."

12. Since the aforesaid aspect is completely lacking, thus the summoning order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the application disposed of with the following terms: a. The order dated 21.01.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in complaint case no. 978 of 2025 (State vs. Prakash Chand), U/s 18(A), 18 (c)/ 27(B) (ii) & 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940, P.S. Rahra, District Amroha is set aside. b The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order . c. For facilitation in speedy disposal, the parties shall place this order before the court below by 05.08.2025.

13. The instructions marked as Appendix- A. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad