Acts & Sections Discussed:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482, Section 468(2), Section 202
• Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (DC Act) – Section 18(a)(i), Section 16, Section 27(d)

Subjects:
Summoning Order – Application of Judicial Mind – Non-Speaking Order – Quashing of Proceedings – Prima Facie Case – Limitation – Section 482 CrPC – Drugs & Cosmetics Act Violation

Nature of the Litigation

• Appellants sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC.

Relief Sought by Appellants

• Prayer to quash the complaint in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 initiated under Section 32 of DC Act.

Reason for Filing the Case

• Allegation of manufacturing & selling "Not of Standard Quality" drugs (Moxigold-CV 625).
• Analytical report issued on 15 December 2018 found drugs substandard.
• Complaint filed in May 2023, exceeding 3-year limitation under Section 468(2) of CrPC.
• Summoning order dated 19 July 2023 issued without assigning reasons.

Procedural History

• High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed petition for quashing proceedings on 4 October 2023.
• Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal.

Issues Before the Court:

1. Whether the summoning order passed by the Trial Court was valid despite being a non-speaking order?
2. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468(2) CrPC?
3. Whether there was non-compliance with Section 202 CrPC?

Submissions/Arguments:

By the Appellants:

a) Summoning order must assign reasons – Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind.
b) Case barred by limitation – Complaint filed beyond 3 years from analytical report.
c) Non-compliance with Section 202 CrPC – No proper inquiry conducted before issuing summons.

By the Respondents:

a) Appellants violated Section 18(a)(i) of DC Act by selling substandard drugs.
b) Complaint was filed as per due process.

Decision:

• Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
• High Court order dated 4 October 2023 was set aside.
• Summoning order dated 19 July 2023 was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Summoning an accused is a serious matter – Must reflect judicial application of mind.
2. Order must record reasons, even briefly – Non-speaking orders are unsustainable.
3. Following precedents in Pepsi Foods Ltd. (1998) 5 SCC 749, Sunil Bharti Mittal (2015) 4 SCC 609, and Krishna Lal Chawla (2021) 5 SCC 435.

Held:

• Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind while issuing process.
• Summoning order was vague & without reasons – Liable to be quashed.