Courtroom Chronicles

SC ON LEGAL SCRUTINY OF SUMMONING ORDERS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

by | Jan 31, 2025

 

Case Title M/S. JM Laboratories & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another
Introduction The case concerns a criminal appeal filed by M/S. JM Laboratories and its partners challenging the summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision dismissing their plea to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The case revolves around allegations of manufacturing and distributing substandard drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Factual Background The Drugs Inspector, Kurnool Urban, filed a complaint against JM Laboratories for manufacturing and distributing MOXIGOLD-CV 625 (Amoxycillin & Potassium Clavunate Tablets IP) that failed the Dissolution Test as per an Analytical Report dated December 15, 2018. The complaint was filed on May 29, 2019, leading to a summons issued on July 19, 2023. The appellants sought to quash the proceedings, citing procedural violations and a time-barred complaint.
Legal Issues
  1.  Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468(2) CrPC.
  2.  Whether the summoning order issued by the trial court was valid without assigning reasons.
  3.  Whether there was non-compliance with procedural requirements under Section 202 CrPC.
  4. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Applicable Law
  • Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Sections 16, 18(a)(i), 27(d), and 32.
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 482, 468(2), and 202.
  • Relevant Supreme Court Precedents: – Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 – Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015) 4 SCC 609 – Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420
Analysis The Supreme Court found that the summoning order issued by the Magistrate was a non-speaking order and did not reflect application of mind, violating established legal precedents. The court relied on cases emphasizing the need for reasoned orders in criminal proceedings. It noted that issuing summons is a serious matter, requiring proper justification. Since the complaint was also filed beyond the three-year limitation period under Section 468(2) CrPC, the appeal was allowed.
Conclusion The Supreme Court set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order and quashed the summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, and all related proceedings in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023. The ruling reaffirmed the necessity of reasoned judicial orders in criminal proceedings.
Current Scenario The appellants have been relieved from the criminal proceedings, and the case has been dismissed. This judgment strengthens the legal requirement for courts to provide detailed reasoning when issuing summons in criminal cases.

CASE SUMMARY – M/S. JM Laboratories and its partners faced criminal proceedings for allegedly manufacturing and distributing substandard drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The trial court issued a summons without assigning reasons, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed their plea to quash the proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that the summoning order was invalid as it lacked proper reasoning, violating established legal precedents. Additionally, the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period. The Court quashed the proceedings, reinforcing the necessity of reasoned judicial orders and upholding procedural safeguards in criminal litigation.

 

SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

READ ALSO – JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SELECTION PROCESS AND NATURAL JUSTICE

 

Written By Nancy Sharma

I am Nancy Mahavir Sharma, a passionate legal writer and a judicial service aspirant who is interested in legal researching and writing. I have completed Latin Legum Magister degree. I have been writing from past few years and I am excited to share my legal thoughts and opinions here. I believe that everyone has the potential to make a difference.

Related Posts