UP State Drugs Inspector v. Rohit Kumar) under Sections

1. Heard Mr. Mohammad Shahrukh Waseem Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This Court on 11.09.2025 required learned A.G.A. to obtain instructions. Today, instructions have been forwarded under the signature of opposite party no.2 dated 16.09.2025, which is marked as Appendix-A. Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA submits that he is equipped with the complete instructions and he does not propose to file any further affidavit and the application be decided at this stage on the basis of the documents available on records.

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

4. This is an application under Section 528 of BNS preferred by the applicant to quash the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated

22.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court-1, Mainpuri as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.223 of 2024 (UP State Drugs Inspector Vs. Rohit Kumar) under Sections 18-A, 28, 18(a)(i), 17B, 17, 27-(c), 18-(a)(vi), 27-(d) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and The Drugs Rules, 1945, P.S.- Ghiror, District- Mainpuri pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No.-1, Mainpuri.

5. The case of the applicant is that on 30.03.2024 on the basis of the information so received by the opposite party no.2 an inspection was 2 NA528 No. 34884 of 2025 conducted in the premises of M/s New Rahul Medical Store, proprietor whereof is the applicant in his presence wherein samples were drawn of the drug (a)-Mucef-200 Tablet and the said samples were sealed and thereafter sent for analysis report and the report came to be submitted on

23.04.2024 and 03.06.2024 according to the complainant the samples were not drawn as per the specifications. Sample no.1 was as per standard quality and Sample no.2 was not as per specification. Pursuant thereto after following the procedure a complaint should be lodged against the applicant under Section 18-A read with Section 28, 18-a(i) read with Sections 17-B, 17 and 27(c), 18-a(vi) read with Section 27D of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with 1945 Rules. Pursuant thereto on

22.10.2024, the applicant came to be summoned in the complaint Case No.- 223 of 2024 (UP State Drugs Inspector Vs. Rohit Kumar) under Sections 18-A, 28, 18(a)(i), 17B, 17, 27-(c), 18-(a)(vi), 27-(d) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and The Drugs Rules, 1945.

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

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one reason firstly the same is non speaking unreasoned and it does not even recite the case of the complainant, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of M/S. JM Laboratories and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.-5067 of 2024 decided on 30.01.2025. Secondly, in the court of sessions had no jurisdiction to have summoned the applicant until and unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the Cr.P.C. He submits that the said aspects of the matter is even not noticed in the summoning order. Thirdly, no offences are made out from the complaint so as to summon the applicant under the penal sections. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and others (2021) 12 SCC 674. Fourthly, there has been non-compliance of the provisions contained under first proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 223 of the BNSS since the complaint had been filed on 27.08.2024 post enforcement of BNSS thus the applicant ought to have been put to notice at the pre-cognizance stage which has not been done. Learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that the summoning 3 NA528 No. 34884 of 2025 order cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned AGA from perusal of the complaint prima facie offences are made out as one of the samples did not meet the specification however according to him the summoning order does not tests the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S. JM Laboratories (supra) and it also does not avert to the requirement of committal. He submits that the summoning order be said aside and the matter be remitted back to court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

9. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully.

10. The summoning order dated 22.10.2024 reads as under:- ्ऺस्तुत पिरवाद पिरवादी दीपक कु मार औषिध िनरी्षक का ओर से अपराध अंतगर्त याराः-18- A दण्ड अंतगर्त चारा 28, 18 - (x)(i) सहपिठत धारा- 17 B,17 दण्ड अंतगर्त धारा 27-( c) 18 - (a)(vi) दण्ड अंतगर्त धारा 27-(d), औषिध एवं ्ऺसाधन सािम्षी अिधिनयम-1940 एवं िनयमावली-1945 थाना:- िघरोर जनपद मैनपुरी ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया। आदेश दजर् रिजस्टर हो। संलग्न ्ऺप्ऴो के अवलोकन हेतु ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺकरण का संजान िलया जाने हेतु साष्य प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध है। अतःप्ऴावली दजर् रिजस्टर हो। वास्ते सुनवाई िदनांक 27/11/२४को तेश हो।

11. A bare look of the summoning order would reveal that the same is non-speaking unreasoned and even it does not recite the case of the complainant. Summoning is a serious business and application of mind is imperative in M/S. JM Laboratories (supra) it has been 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 v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others1, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation2, Mehmood Ul 4 NA528 No. 34884 of 2025 Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others3 and Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."

12. Further the issue with regard to fact that whether there was a committal by the Magistrate to the court of sessions is also not forthcoming whether the applicant had been put to notice at the pre- cognizance stage. In Ashok Kumar Sharma (Supra) it was observed as under:- "It is to be noted that Section 32 declares that no court inferior to the Court of Sessions shall try offence punishable under Chapter IV. We have noticed that under Section 193 of the CrPC, no Court of Sessions can take cognizance of any offence as a Court of Original Jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the CrPc. This is, undoubtedly, subject to the law providing expressly that Court of Sessions may take cognizance of any offence as the Court of Original Jurisdiction. There is no provision in the Act which expressly authorises the special court which is the Court of Sessions to take cognizance of the offence under Chapter IV."

13. Since the said exercise is lacking and as per the learned AGA the matter be remitted back to the court below. Thus the applications are being decided in the following manner. (A) The summoning order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court-1, Mainpuri in Complaint Case No.223 of 2024 (UP State Drugs Inspector Vs. Rohit Kumar) under Sections 18-A, 28, 18(a)(i), 17B, 17, 27-(c), 18-(a)(vi), 27-(d) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and The Drugs Rules, 1945, P.S.- Ghiror, District- Mainpuri, is set aside. (B) The matters stand remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. (C) For facilitating early disposal, the parties shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 08th October, 2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition. 5 NA528 No. 34884 of 2025

14. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the cases.

15. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. September 19, 2025 Virendra (Vikas Budhwar,J.) VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Mohammad Shahrukh Waseem Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This Court on 11.09.2025 required learned A.G.A. to obtain instructions. Today, instructions have been forwarded under the signature of opposite party no.2 dated 16.09.2025, which is marked as Appendix-A. Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA submits that he is equipped with the complete instructions and he does not propose to file any further affidavit and the application be decided at this stage on the basis of the documents available on records.

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

4. This is an application under Section 528 of BNS preferred by the applicant to quash the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated

22.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court-1, Mainpuri as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.223 of 2024 (UP State Drugs Inspector Vs. Rohit Kumar) under Sections 18-A, 28, 18(a)(i), 17B, 17, 27-(c), 18-(a)(vi), 27-(d) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and The Drugs Rules, 1945, P.S.- Ghiror, District- Mainpuri pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No.-1, Mainpuri.

5. The case of the applicant is that on 30.03.2024 on the basis of the information so received by the opposite party no.2 an inspection was 2 NA528 No. 34884 of 2025 conducted in the premises of M/s New Rahul Medical Store, proprietor whereof is the applicant in his presence wherein samples were drawn of the drug (a)-Mucef-200 Tablet and the said samples were sealed and thereafter sent for analysis report and the report came to be submitted on

23.04.2024 and 03.06.2024 according to the complainant the samples were not drawn as per the specifications. Sample no.1 was as per standard quality and Sample no.2 was not as per specification. Pursuant thereto after following the procedure a complaint should be lodged against the applicant under Section 18-A read with Section 28, 18-a(i) read with Sections 17-B, 17 and 27(c), 18-a(vi) read with Section 27D of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with 1945 Rules. Pursuant thereto on

22.10.2024, the applicant came to be summoned in the complaint Case No.- 223 of 2024 (UP State Drugs Inspector Vs. Rohit Kumar) under Sections 18-A, 28, 18(a)(i), 17B, 17, 27-(c), 18-(a)(vi), 27-(d) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and The Drugs Rules, 1945.

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

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one reason firstly the same is non speaking unreasoned and it does not even recite the case of the complainant, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of M/S. JM Laboratories and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.-5067 of 2024 decided on 30.01.2025. Secondly, in the court of sessions had no jurisdiction to have summoned the applicant until and unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the Cr.P.C. He submits that the said aspects of the matter is even not noticed in the summoning order. Thirdly, no offences are made out from the complaint so as to summon the applicant under the penal sections. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and others (2021) 12 SCC 674. Fourthly, there has been non-compliance of the provisions contained under first proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 223 of the BNSS since the complaint had been filed on 27.08.2024 post enforcement of BNSS thus the applicant ought to have been put to notice at the pre-cognizance stage which has not been done. Learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that the summoning 3 NA528 No. 34884 of 2025 order cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned AGA from perusal of the complaint prima facie offences are made out as one of the samples did not meet the specification however according to him the summoning order does not tests the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S. JM Laboratories (supra) and it also does not avert to the requirement of committal. He submits that the summoning order be said aside and the matter be remitted back to court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

9. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully.

10. The summoning order dated 22.10.2024 reads as under:- ्ऺस्तुत पिरवाद पिरवादी दीपक कु मार औषिध िनरी्षक का ओर से अपराध अंतगर्त याराः-18- A दण्ड अंतगर्त चारा 28, 18 - (x)(i) सहपिठत धारा- 17 B,17 दण्ड अंतगर्त धारा 27-( c) 18 - (a)(vi) दण्ड अंतगर्त धारा 27-(d), औषिध एवं ्ऺसाधन सािम्षी अिधिनयम-1940 एवं िनयमावली-1945 थाना:- िघरोर जनपद मैनपुरी ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया। आदेश दजर् रिजस्टर हो। संलग्न ्ऺप्ऴो के अवलोकन हेतु ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺकरण का संजान िलया जाने हेतु साष्य प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध है। अतःप्ऴावली दजर् रिजस्टर हो। वास्ते सुनवाई िदनांक 27/11/२४को तेश हो।

11. A bare look of the summoning order would reveal that the same is non-speaking unreasoned and even it does not recite the case of the complainant. Summoning is a serious business and application of mind is imperative in M/S. JM Laboratories (supra) it has been 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 v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others1, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation2, Mehmood Ul 4 NA528 No. 34884 of 2025 Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others3 and Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."

12. Further the issue with regard to fact that whether there was a committal by the Magistrate to the court of sessions is also not forthcoming whether the applicant had been put to notice at the pre- cognizance stage. In Ashok Kumar Sharma (Supra) it was observed as under:- "It is to be noted that Section 32 declares that no court inferior to the Court of Sessions shall try offence punishable under Chapter IV. We have noticed that under Section 193 of the CrPC, no Court of Sessions can take cognizance of any offence as a Court of Original Jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the CrPc. This is, undoubtedly, subject to the law providing expressly that Court of Sessions may take cognizance of any offence as the Court of Original Jurisdiction. There is no provision in the Act which expressly authorises the special court which is the Court of Sessions to take cognizance of the offence under Chapter IV."

13. Since the said exercise is lacking and as per the learned AGA the matter be remitted back to the court below. Thus the applications are being decided in the following manner. (A) The summoning order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court-1, Mainpuri in Complaint Case No.223 of 2024 (UP State Drugs Inspector Vs. Rohit Kumar) under Sections 18-A, 28, 18(a)(i), 17B, 17, 27-(c), 18-(a)(vi), 27-(d) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and The Drugs Rules, 1945, P.S.- Ghiror, District- Mainpuri, is set aside. (B) The matters stand remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. (C) For facilitating early disposal, the parties shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 08th October, 2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition. 5 NA528 No. 34884 of 2025

14. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the cases.

15. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. September 19, 2025 Virendra (Vikas Budhwar,J.) VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad