Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s. JM Laboratories and others against the State of Andhra Pradesh, setting aside the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had dismissed their petition to quash criminal proceedings. The case arose from a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Kurnool, alleging that a drug sample (MOXIGOLD-CV 625) manufactured by the appellants was 'Not of Standard Quality' as it failed the dissolution test, thereby violating Sections 18(a)(i) read with 16 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 27(d). The trial court summoned the appellants via a non-speaking order dated 19th July 2023. The appellants challenged this order before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, but the High Court dismissed their petition. In appeal, the Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the limitation issue raised by the appellants. Instead, it focused on the procedural defect in the summoning order. The Court observed that the summoning order merely stated that the accused's attendance was necessary to give evidence in a charge under the DC Act, without any reasons indicating application of mind. Relying on its earlier judgment in INOX Air Products Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh and the principles laid down in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that a summoning order must reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and law. Since the order was totally non-speaking, it was unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order and the trial court's summoning order, and remitted the matter back to the trial court to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summoning Order - Requirement of Reasons - Section 204 CrPC, 1973 - The Magistrate must apply judicial mind and record reasons, however brief, before issuing process against an accused. A non-speaking summoning order is illegal and liable to be set aside. The order must reflect that the Magistrate has examined the complaint, evidence, and law applicable. (Paras 6-10) B) Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Offence of Manufacturing Not of Standard Quality Drugs - Sections 18(a)(i), 16, 27(d), 32 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - The complaint alleged that the drug sample failed dissolution test and was 'Not of Standard Quality'. However, the summoning order was quashed on procedural ground of lack of reasons, without examining merits of the case. (Paras 3.2, 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the summoning order passed by the Magistrate without assigning any reasons is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment of the High Court and the summoning order dated 19th July 2023 passed by the trial court, and remitted the matter back to the trial court to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Summoning order must reflect application of mind
- Non-speaking summoning order is illegal
- Section 204 CrPC requires reasons for issuing process
- Magistrate not a silent spectator
