Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for Non-Speaking Summoning Order and Violation of Section 202 CrPC, Holds Summoning an Accused is a Serious Matter Requiring Application of Mind

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, which had dismissed the appellants’ plea to quash criminal proceedings. The Court ruled that the trial court had issued a summoning order without assigning any reasons, which made the order legally unsustainable.

Key Directives:

1. The summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kurnool was quashed.
2. The entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 were set aside.
3. The High Court’s judgment in Criminal Petition No. 5766 of 2023 was overturned.

Facts of the Case

1. The Complaint:
   • On 29th May 2019, the Drugs Inspector, Kurnool Urban (Respondent No. 2) filed a complaint under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (DC Act) before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kurnool.
   • The complaint was filed against M/s. J.M. Laboratories, its Managing Partner, and three silent partners (Appellants).
2. Allegations:
   • On 7th September 2018, the Drugs Inspector collected a sample of MOXIGOLD-CV 625 (Amoxycillin & Potassium Clavulanate Tablets IP) from the market.
   • The sample was manufactured by M/s. J.M. Laboratories and belonged to Batch No. BT170059F, manufactured in November 2017, with an expiry date of April 2019.
   • The sample was sent for testing to the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Vijayawada.
3. Lab Report & Legal Action:
   • On 15th December 2018, the Government Analyst declared the sample “Not of Standard Quality” due to its failure in the Dissolution Test for Amoxycillin and Clavulanic Acid.
   • The appellants were accused of violating Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16 of the DC Act by manufacturing and selling substandard drugs, which is an offense punishable under Section 27(d) of the DC Act.
4. Proceedings Before the Lower Courts:
   • On 19th July 2023, the trial court issued a summoning order directing the appellants to appear on 10th August 2023.
   • The appellants challenged this order before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, arguing that the complaint was barred by limitation and procedurally flawed.
   • The High Court dismissed their petition, prompting them to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the criminal complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468(2) of CrPC?
2. Whether the summoning order issued by the trial court was legally sustainable given that no reasons were recorded?
3. Whether the non-compliance with Section 202 CrPC rendered the proceedings invalid?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Appellants)

1. The Complaint Was Barred by Limitation:
   • The petitioners contended that under Section 468(2) CrPC, the maximum limitation period for filing a complaint for an offense punishable under Section 27(d) of the DC Act is three years.
   • Since the Government Analyst’s report was issued on 15th December 2018, the three-year period ended in December 2021.
   • However, the complaint was filed in May 2023, making it time-barred.
2. Summoning Order Issued Without Reasons:
   • The appellants argued that the summoning order dated 19th July 2023 failed to mention any reasons or legal basis for issuing process against them.
   • Citing Supreme Court precedents, they argued that the Magistrate must record reasons while summoning an accused, and failure to do so renders the order invalid.
3. Non-Compliance with Section 202 CrPC:
   • The appellants pointed out that since they were outside the trial court’s jurisdiction, Section 202 CrPC mandated a preliminary inquiry before issuing summons.
   • The trial court did not conduct such an inquiry, violating mandatory procedural safeguards.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Andhra Pradesh)

1. The Drug Sample Was Substandard:
   • The respondents defended the complaint, stating that laboratory testing confirmed that the drug sample failed quality standards, justifying prosecution.
2. Summoning Order Was Sufficient:
   • The respondents argued that while the summoning order was brief, it was legally sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings.
3. Limitation Not a Bar in Serious Cases:
   • The State contended that limitation should not be strictly applied in cases involving public health and safety.

Analysis of the Law

1. Summoning Requires Application of Mind:
   • The Supreme Court reiterated that issuing summons is a serious matter and cannot be done mechanically.
   • Relying on Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Court held that a Magistrate must examine allegations, evidence, and applicable law before summoning an accused.
2. Limitation Period Under Section 468(2) CrPC:
   • The Supreme Court noted that the maximum period for filing a complaint for offenses punishable with three years’ imprisonment is three years.
   • Since the analytical report was issued on 15th December 2018, the complaint should have been filed by December 2021.
3. Precedents on Summoning Orders:
   • The Court cited multiple judgments, including:
     • Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015) 4 SCC 609 – Summoning orders must record reasons.
     • Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420 – Summoning requires judicial application of mind.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Summoning Order Was Non-Speaking:
   • The Supreme Court examined the summoning order, which simply stated that the accused must appear but did not provide any reasoning.
   • Referring to Pepsi Foods Ltd., the Court emphasized that criminal law cannot be set in motion as a matter of routine.
2. Failure to Conduct Mandatory Inquiry:
   • Since the appellants were outside the magistrate’s jurisdiction, an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC was mandatory, which was not conducted.
3. Complaint Was Barred by Limitation:
   • The Supreme Court held that the complaint was time-barred under Section 468(2) CrPC and should not have been entertained.

Conclusion

1. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
2. The High Court’s order dismissing the quashing petition was set aside.
3. The criminal proceedings, including the summoning order, were quashed.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Strengthens the Requirement for Reasoned Summoning Orders:
   • Courts cannot mechanically issue summons without proper reasoning.
2. Ensures Protection Against Arbitrary Prosecution:
   • Companies and individuals cannot be dragged into criminal proceedings unless the law is strictly followed.
3. Reinforces Limitation Period in Criminal Law:
   • Complaints must be filed within the statutory time limit, or they become invalid.
4. Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC:
   • If an accused resides outside the magistrate’s jurisdiction, an inquiry is compulsory before summoning them.

This ruling significantly impacts corporate prosecutions under regulatory laws, ensuring due process and legal safeguards are followed.

Also Read – Supreme Court Grants Retrospective Promotion and Monetary Benefits to Bank Employee: Flawed Disciplinary Proceedings Tainted by Bias Invalidates 2001 Promotion Cancellation, Justice Prevails Beyond Technicalities