SUMMONING ORDER MUST REFLECT APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL MIND. Summoning an accused is a serious matter – Magistrate must assign reasons – Non-speaking summoning order quashed

Case Note & Summary

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: Whether the summoning order passed by the Trial Court was valid despite being a non-speaking order? Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468(2) CrPC? 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: Summoning an accused is a serious matter – Must reflect judicial application of mind. Order must record reasons, even briefly – Non-speaking orders are unsustainable. 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.