Appeal against the quash dismissal order
2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 4th October, 2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in Criminal Petition No. 5766 of 2023, whereby the petition filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC”) to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool (hereinafter, “trial court”) came to be dismissed.
Facts
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as given below.
Complaint filed under section 32 Drugs and Cosmetics Act
3.1. On 29th May, 2019 the Drugs Inspector, Kurnool Urban, Kurnool District (Respondent No. 2) filed a complaint being C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 in the Court of First Class Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter, “DC Act”) against M/s. J.M. Laboratories (Appellant No. 1), its Managing Partner (Appellant No. 2) and three silent partners (Appellant Nos. 3, 4 & 5).
Appellants manufacturing, selling and distributing “not of standard quality” drugs
3.2. It is alleged that on 7th September, 2018, the complainant picked up sample of drug MOXIGOLD-CV 625 (Amoxycillin & Potassium Clavunate Tablets IP) bearing Batch No. BT170059F / Manufacture Date – November 2017 / Expiration Date – April 2019, which was manufactured by Appellant No. 1, for analysis. It is further alleged that 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 is further alleged that subsequently on 15th December, 2018, the complainant received Analytical Report 3 in Form-13 from the Government Analyst declaring the drug sample as “Not of Standard Quality” as defined in the DC Act and rules thereunder for the reason that the sample failed in Dissolution Test for Amoxycillin and Clavulanic Acid. It is, therefore, alleged that the appellants herein have violated Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16 of the DC 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.
Summon served
3.3. Pursuant to the complaint, the trial court by an order dated 19th July, 2023 summoned the appellants herein and directed them to appear before it on 10th August, 2023.
Quash preferred and dismissed
3.4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants herein filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC inter-alia praying that the High Court quash criminal proceedings against them arising out of C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 on the file of the trial court.
3.5. Vide impugned judgment and final order, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Criminal Petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal by way of special leave.
Analysis
Summoning order
7. It will be relevant to refer to the summoning order which reads thus:
“Whereas your attendance is necessary to give evidence in a charge Sec.18(a)(i) r/w Sec. 16(i)(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the accused M/s J.M. Laboratories, Vill. Bhanat, P.O-Ghtti, Subathu Road, Solan (H.P.). You are hereby requested to appear in person before the Hon’ble Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool at 10:30 AM on the 10th day of August 2023.
Given under my hand the seal of the court this ______ day of July 2023.”
Judgment analysis for summoning order
8. In the judgment and order of even date 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”, we have observed thus:
“paras… 33 to 40”
Conclusion
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 Others, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others and Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
Judgments relied/cited
- Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others
Citation: (1998) 5 SCC 749 - Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: (2015) 4 SCC 609 - Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others
Citation: (2015) 12 SCC 420 - Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Citation: (2021) 5 SCC 435 - Lalankumar Singh and Others v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 - INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024.
Party
M/S. JM LABORATORIES AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER – Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5067 of 2024) – 2025 INSC 127 – January 30, 2025
