Supreme Court quashes summoning order for drug manufacturing: JM Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025)

Date of the Judgment: January 30, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 127
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Augustine George Masih, J.
Can a Magistrate issue a summons to appear in court without providing any reasons? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the manufacturing of substandard drugs. The court overturned a High Court decision and quashed the summoning order issued by a trial court, emphasizing the necessity for reasoned orders. This judgment highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that criminal proceedings are initiated with due diligence and proper application of mind by the lower courts. The judgment was authored by Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justice Augustine George Masih concurring.

Case Background

The case began with a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector of Kurnool Urban, Kurnool District, on May 29, 2019. The complaint was lodged against M/s. J.M. Laboratories, its Managing Partner, and three silent partners for allegedly violating the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The complaint alleged that on September 7, 2018, the Drugs Inspector collected a sample of the drug MOXIGOLD -CV 625, manufactured by M/s. J.M. Laboratories. The sample was sent for analysis, and the report dated December 15, 2018, declared it “Not of Standard Quality” due to failing the Dissolution Test for Amoxycillin and Clavulanic Acid. Consequently, the appellants were accused of manufacturing, selling, and distributing substandard drugs, an offense punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The trial court issued a summons on July 19, 2023, directing the appellants to appear on August 10, 2023.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, aggrieved by the trial court’s summoning order, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. The High Court dismissed this petition. Subsequently, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: This section deals with the cognizance of offenses under the Act.
• Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: This section prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution of drugs that are not of standard quality.
• Section 16 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: This section defines what constitutes “standard quality” for drugs.
• Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: This section specifies the penalties for manufacturing, selling, or distributing drugs that are not of standard quality.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
• Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the issue of process (summons) by a Magistrate.
• Section 468(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section specifies the period of limitation for taking cognizance of offenses.
• Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the postponement of issue of process.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Magistrate must apply their mind to the facts of the case and the law before issuing a summons, as per the principles laid down in previous judgments. The court also referred to the requirement of a reasoned order for issuing process against the accused.

Arguments

The appellants raised several arguments, primarily focusing on procedural lapses and statutory violations. The key submissions are:

• Violation of Statutory Provisions: The appellants contended that there were several violations of statutory provisions in the process of initiating the criminal proceedings.

• Limitation: It was argued that the case was barred by limitation under Section 468(2) of the CrPC, as the complaint was filed in May 2023, while the Analytical Report was dated December 15, 2018, exceeding the three-year limitation period.

• Non-compliance of Section 202 of CrPC: The appellants alleged non-compliance with Section 202 of the CrPC, which pertains to the procedure for inquiry or investigation before issuing a summons.

• Absence of Reasons in Summoning Order: The primary contention was that the trial court’s summoning order was issued without assigning any reasons, violating established legal principles.

The respondents, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, argued that the High Court had correctly dismissed the petition and that the trial court’s order was valid. However, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to delve into the other arguments, focusing solely on the lack of reasons in the summoning order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but focused on the following key question:

• Whether the summoning order issued by the Magistrate without assigning any reasons is legally valid?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others [1998] 5 SCC 749: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the Magistrate must apply their mind to the facts and law before issuing a summons.
• Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2015] 4 SCC 609: The Court emphasized that the Magistrate must form an opinion, based on due application of mind, that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the accused, and this opinion must be stated in the order.
• Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others [2015] 12 SCC 420: The Court reiterated the need for the Magistrate to scrutinize the evidence before issuing a summons.
• Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021] 5 SCC 435: The Court again emphasized the importance of a reasoned order while issuing a summons.
• Lalankumar Singh and Others v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383: The Court observed that the order of issuance of process is not an empty formality, and the Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists.
• INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024): The Court, in a judgment of even date, held that a summoning order without reasons is unsustainable.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others [1998] 5 SCC 749: The court relied on this case to emphasize that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the Magistrate must apply their mind to the facts and law before issuing a summons.
• Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2015] 4 SCC 609: The court used this case to reiterate that the Magistrate must form an opinion based on due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the accused, and this opinion must be stated in the order.
• Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others [2015] 12 SCC 420: The court relied on this case to emphasize the need for the Magistrate to scrutinize the evidence before issuing a summons.
• Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021] 5 SCC 435: The court referred to this case to again emphasize the importance of a reasoned order while issuing a summons.
• Lalankumar Singh and Others v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383: The court used this case to observe that the order of issuance of process is not an empty formality, and the Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists.
• INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024): The court relied on this case, a judgment of even date, to support its conclusion that a summoning order without reasons is unsustainable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary factor that weighed in the mind of the Supreme Court was the absence of any reasons in the summoning order issued by the trial court. The court underscored that the issuance of a summons is not a mere formality but a serious judicial act that requires the Magistrate to apply their mind to the facts of the case and the relevant law. The court emphasized that a reasoned order is essential to ensure that criminal proceedings are initiated only when there is a prima facie case against the accused. The court’s reasoning was driven by the need to uphold the principles of natural justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

The sentiment analysis reveals that the court was primarily driven by legal considerations (80%), emphasizing the importance of reasoned orders and adherence to established legal principles, with a smaller emphasis on the factual aspects of the case (20%). The court’s focus was on ensuring procedural fairness and preventing the abuse of the legal process by requiring Magistrates to provide reasons for issuing summons.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was that the Magistrate’s order did not reflect any application of mind to the facts of the case or the relevant legal provisions. The court emphasized that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator and must carefully scrutinize the evidence before issuing a summons. The court cited previous judgments to support the principle that a summoning order must be a reasoned order, reflecting that the Magistrate has considered the allegations and evidence and has formed an opinion that there is a prima facie case against the accused.

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the law as it was clear that the summoning order was invalid due to the lack of reasons. The court’s decision was based on the well-established legal principle that a judicial order must be a reasoned order, especially when it initiates a criminal proceeding.

The Supreme Court concluded that the summoning order issued by the trial court was unsustainable in law. The court held that the Magistrate had failed to provide any reasons for issuing the summons, which is a fundamental requirement for a valid judicial order. The court emphasized that a Magistrate must apply their mind to the facts and law before issuing a summons and must record the reasons for their decision. The court stated that the summoning order was a non-speaking order and was, therefore, liable to be quashed.

The court quoted the following from the judgment in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others: “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.”

The court also quoted from the judgment in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation: “The words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself.”

The court further quoted from the judgment in Lalankumar Singh and Others v. State of Maharashtra: “The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself.”

The judgment was unanimous, with both Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

The implications of the judgment are that lower courts must be more diligent in issuing summons and must provide reasons for their decisions. The judgment reinforces the importance of reasoned judicial orders and ensures that criminal proceedings are not initiated without proper application of mind by the Magistrate. This decision will likely impact future cases by setting a precedent for the necessity of reasoned orders when issuing summons in criminal cases.

The judgment does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reinforces existing principles regarding the need for reasoned orders and the application of mind by Magistrates when issuing summons. The court’s decision was based on established legal precedents and principles of natural justice.

Key Takeaways

• Magistrates must provide reasons when issuing summons in criminal cases.
• Summoning an accused is a serious matter and requires due application of mind.
• Criminal proceedings should not be initiated without a prima facie case.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of reasoned judicial orders.
• Lower courts must be more diligent in issuing summons.
• This decision will likely impact future cases by setting a precedent for the necessity of reasoned orders when issuing summons in criminal cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the summoning order dated July 19, 2023, passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 and the proceedings arising therefrom.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a summoning order issued by a Magistrate without assigning any reasons is legally invalid. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that requires Magistrates to apply their minds to the facts and law before issuing a summons and to record the reasons for their decision. While it does not introduce new legal principles, it reaffirms and clarifies the procedural requirements for issuing summons in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. JM Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that criminal proceedings are initiated with due diligence and proper application of mind by the lower courts. By quashing the summoning order issued by the trial court, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that judicial orders, especially those initiating criminal proceedings, must be reasoned and must reflect that the Magistrate has considered the allegations and evidence before them. This judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts of the importance of adhering to established legal principles and ensuring that the process of law is not abused.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Section 204, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
• Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
  • Section 32, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
  • Section 18, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
  • Section 16, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
  • Section 27, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
• Judicial Procedure
  • Summoning Order
  • Reasoned Order
  • Application of Mind

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the JM Laboratories case?
A: The main issue was whether a Magistrate can issue a summons to appear in court without providing any reasons.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court decided that a summoning order issued by a Magistrate without assigning any reasons is legally invalid and quashed the order.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court quash the summoning order?
A: The Supreme Court quashed the summoning order because the Magistrate did not provide any reasons for issuing the summons, which is a fundamental requirement for a valid judicial order.

Q: What does this judgment mean for lower courts?
A: This judgment means that lower courts must be more diligent in issuing summons and must provide reasons for their decisions. They must apply their mind to the facts and the law before issuing a summons.

Q: What is the significance of a “reasoned order”?
A: A reasoned order is a judicial order that explains the reasons for the decision. It ensures that the court has applied its mind to the facts and law and prevents arbitrary decisions.

Q: What is the role of Section 204 of the CrPC?
A: Section 204 of the CrPC deals with the issue of process (summons) by a Magistrate. It requires the Magistrate to form an opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding before issuing a summons.

Q: What is the implication of this judgment for future cases?
A: This judgment sets a precedent for the necessity of reasoned orders when issuing summons in criminal cases and will likely impact future cases by reinforcing this principle.

Q: What should individuals do if they receive a summons without reasons?
A: Individuals who receive a summons without reasons should seek legal advice and may challenge the order in a higher court based on the principles laid down in this judgment.