Read Time: 09 minutes
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, stating the Magistrate issued the process without assigning reasons
The Supreme Court on January 30, 2025, emphasised that no process can be issued by a judicial magistrate without assigning reasons, as it quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a pharmaceutical company and its partners over manufacturing of a drug allegedly not of standard quality as per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal filed by M/s JM Laboratories and Others and set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment of October 4, 2023.
The high court had dismissed a criminal petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.
On May 29, 2019, the Drugs Inspector, Kurnool Urban, Kurnool District filed a complaint in the Kurnool court under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the appellants.
It was alleged that on September 7, 2018, the complainant picked up a sample of the drug MOXIGOLD-CV 625 (Amoxycillin & Potassium Clavunate Tablets IP), manufactured by the appellant, for analysis. On the same day by a memorandum, the complainant sent one sealed portion of the drug sample to the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Vijayawada along with Form-18 through registered post.
It was further alleged that subsequently on December 15, 2018, the complainant received an Analytical Report in Form-13 from the Government Analyst declaring the drug sample as “Not of Standard Quality” as defined in the Act and rules thereunder for the reason that the sample failed in dissolution test for Amoxycillin and Clavulanic Acid.
It was, therefore, alleged that the appellants had Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16 of the Act by manufacturing, selling and distributing “Not of Standard Quality” drugs and ought to be punished for offence punishable under Section 27(d) of DC Act.
Upon the complaint, the trial court by an order of July 19, 2023, summoned the appellants and directed them to appear before it on August 10, 2023.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the high court to quash criminal proceedings against them. The high court dismissed their plea.
Arguing the appeal before the Supreme Court, their counsel contended there were violations of various statutory provisions. He also submitted that the case was barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in Section 468 (2) of the CrPC.
The Analytical Report in respect of which the violation was alleged was of December 15, 2018, whereas the complaint was filed in May 2023, beyond a period of three years and hence, this would not be tenable, the counsel claimed, further stating that there was also non-compliance of the provisions of Section 202 of CrPC.
The bench, however, said, "We do not find it necessary to consider the submissions made by the appellants on various grounds inasmuch as the present appeal is liable to be allowed on the short ground that the Magistrate has issued the process without assigning any reasons."
The court relied upon its judgment of January 30, 2025, in 'INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh', wherein it was stressed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.
"In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non-speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in 'INOX Air Products Limited', and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments, the present appeal deserves to be allowed," the bench sajd.
The court relied upon the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd and Another Vs Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998), Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2015), Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others (2015) and Krishna Lal Chawla and Others State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021).
The bench thus quashed the summoning order of July 19, 2023 and the proceedings arising therefrom.
Case Title: M/s J M Laboratories & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh And Another
Please Login or Register