M/s. J.M. Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 INSC 127; Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih
Background
The case arose from a criminal complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Kurnool Urban, under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The complaint alleged that M/s. J.M. Laboratories, its managing partner, and three silent partners had manufactured and distributed a substandard drug, MOXIGOLD-CV 625 (Amoxycillin & Potassium Clavunate Tablets IP), violating Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16 of the Act, punishable under Section 27(d). The complaint was based on a September 2018 government analyst’s report declaring the drug “not of standard quality”.
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kurnool, issued a summoning order against the appellants. The company challenged the proceedings before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the case was time-barred under Section 468(2) CrPC (three-year limitation) and that the summoning order was non-speaking and lacked judicial reasoning. The High Court dismissed their petition, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Requirement for Reasoned Summoning Orders:
The Supreme Court held that summoning an accused is a serious judicial function, not a mere formality. The Magistrate must apply judicial mind and record valid reasons for issuing process. The bench found that the summoning order in this case was “totally a non-speaking one,” lacking any reasoning or indication of judicial application of mind.
Precedents Cited:
The Court relied on key precedents such as Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998), Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, and Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, all of which mandate that summoning orders must reflect judicial scrutiny and cannot be issued mechanically.
Limitation Issue:
While the appellants argued that the prosecution was barred by limitation, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to address this ground, as the appeal could be allowed solely on the failure of the Magistrate to provide reasons for summoning.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the summoning order and the entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023, and set aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court reaffirmed that a non-speaking summoning order is legally unsustainable and cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.
Significance
This judgment is a strong reaffirmation that issuing process in criminal cases is a serious judicial act requiring clear, reasoned orders. It protects individuals and companies from arbitrary prosecution and strengthens procedural safeguards in criminal law, especially in regulatory offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
RELATED Blog
0 comments