M/S JM LABORATORIES AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

                 [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1256 : 2025 INSC 127

                 M/s JM Laboratories and Others
                                v.
               State of Andhra Pradesh and Another
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2025)
                               30 January 2025
           [B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Non-speaking summoning order issued by Magistrate against the
       appellants. Petition under Section 482, CrPC filed by the appellants
       for quashing, dismissed by High Court. Issue as regards the legality
       of the summoning order and the impugned judgment.

                                  Headnotes†
       Summoning order – Non-speaking – Quashing of:
       Held: Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious
       matter – 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 – However, in the present case,
       the summoning order was totally a non-speaking one – Magistrate
       issued the process without assigning any reasons even for the
       namesake – Impugned judgment passed by the High Court is
       quashed and set aside – Summoning order and the proceedings
       arising therefrom also quashed and set aside. [Paras 6, 8, 9, 10]

                                Case Law Cited
       INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products
       Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, SLP
       (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024; Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special
       Judicial Magistrate and Others, 1997 INSC 714 : [1997] Supp. 5
       SCR 12 : (1998) 5 SCC 749; Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau
       of Investigation, 2015 INSC 18 : [2015] 1 SCR 377 : (2015) 4
       SCC 609; Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda
       and Others, 2015 INSC 983 : [2015] 4 SCR 841 : (2015) 12 SCC
       420; Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
       and Another, 2021 INSC 160 : [2021] 2 SCR 550 : (2021) 5 SCC
       435 – relied on.
* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                          1257

                     M/s JM Laboratories and Others v.
                    State of Andhra Pradesh and Another

                                List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

                             List of Keywords
     Summoning order; Non-speaking; Issuance of process; Without
     assigning any reasons; Magistrate; Criminal proceedings; Quashing;
     Application of mind.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     487 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2023 of the High Court
     of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRLP No. 5766 of 2023

                          Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     H.P.S. Sandhu, Harshit Sethi, Kartik Yadav, Ms. Mansi Tripathi,
     Ayush Choudhary.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Gautam Bhatia, Dhruv
     Yadav.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     B.R. Gavai, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   The present appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated
     4th October, 2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High
     Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in Criminal Petition No. 5766
     of 2023, whereby the petition filed by the appellants herein under
     Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC”)
     to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 on the file of
     learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool (hereinafter, “trial
     court”) came to be dismissed.
1258                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


3.   The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as given below.
     3.1. On 29th May, 2019 the Drugs Inspector, Kurnool Urban, Kurnool
          District (Respondent No. 2) filed a complaint being C.C. No.
          1051 of 2023 in the Court of First Class Judicial Magistrate,
          Kurnool under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
          (hereinafter, “DC Act”) against M/s. J.M. Laboratories (Appellant
          No. 1), its Managing Partner (Appellant No. 2) and three silent
          partners (Appellant Nos. 3, 4 & 5).
     3.2. It is alleged that on 7th September, 2018, the complainant
          picked up sample of drug MOXIGOLD-CV 625 (Amoxycillin &
          Potassium Clavunate Tablets IP) bearing Batch No. BT170059F /
          Manufacture Date – November 2017 / Expiration Date – April
          2019, which was manufactured by Appellant No. 1, for analysis.
          It is further alleged that on the same day by a memorandum,
          the complainant sent one sealed portion of the drug sample to
          the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Vijayawada
          along with Form-18 through registered post. It is further alleged
          that subsequently on 15th December, 2018, the complainant
          received Analytical Report in Form-13 from the Government
          Analyst declaring the drug sample as “Not of Standard Quality”
          as defined in the DC Act and rules thereunder for the reason
          that the sample failed in Dissolution Test for Amoxycillin and
          Clavulanic Acid. It is, therefore, alleged that the appellants
          herein have violated Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16 of
          the DC Act by manufacturing, selling and distributing “Not of
          Standard Quality” drugs and ought to be punished for offence
          punishable under Section 27(d) of DC Act.
     3.3. Pursuant to the complaint, the trial court by an order dated 19th
          July, 2023 summoned the appellants herein and directed them
          to appear before it on 10th August, 2023.
     3.4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants herein filed a petition under
          Section 482 of CrPC inter-alia praying that the High Court quash
          criminal proceedings against them arising out of C.C. No. 1051
          of 2023 on the file of the trial court.
     3.5. Vide impugned judgment and final order, the learned Single
          Judge of the High Court dismissed the Criminal Petition.
          Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal by way of special leave.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                          1259

                     M/s JM Laboratories and Others v.
                    State of Andhra Pradesh and Another

4.   We have heard Shri H.P.S. Sandhu, learned counsel appearing on
     behalf of the appellants and Smt. Prerna Singh, learned counsel
     appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5.   Several submissions have been made on behalf of the appellants.
     It is contended by the appellants that there are violations of various
     statutory provisions. It is also contended that the case is barred by
     limitation in view of the provisions contained in Section 468 (2) of the
     Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the Analytical Report in respect of which
     the violation is alleged is dated 15th December 2018 whereas the
     complaint is filed in May 2023. It is submitted that it is filed beyond a
     period of three years and hence, the same would not be tenable. It
     is also submitted that there is also non-compliance of the provisions
     of Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
6.   However, we do not find it necessary to consider the submissions
     made by the appellants on various grounds inasmuch as the present
     appeal is liable to be allowed on the short ground that the learned
     Magistrate has issued the process without assigning any reasons.
7.   It will be relevant to refer to the summoning order which reads thus:
           “Whereas your attendance is necessary to give evidence in
           a charge Sec.18(a)(i) r/w Sec. 16(i)(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics
           Act, 1940 against the accused M/s J.M. Laboratories, Vill.
           Bhanat, P.O-Ghtti, Subathu Road, Solan (H.P.). You are
           hereby requested to appear in person before the Hon’ble
           Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool at 10:30
           AM on the 10th day of August 2023.
           Given under my hand the seal of the court this ______
           day of July 2023.”
8.   In the judgment and order of even date in criminal appeal arising out
     of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled “INOX Air Products Limited
     Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another
     v. The State of Andhra Pradesh”, we have observed thus:
           “33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that except
           recording the submissions of the complainant, no reasons
           are recorded for issuing the process against the accused
           persons.
1260                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following
        observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd.
        and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others
        (1998) 5 SCC 749 (supra):
             “28. 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. He
             has to examine the nature of allegations made
             in the complaint and the evidence both oral and
             documentary in support thereof and would that
             be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in
             bringing charge home to the accused. It is not
             that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the
             time of recording of preliminary evidence before
             summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has
             to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on
             record and may even himself put questions
             to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit
             answers to find out the truthfulness of the
             allegations or otherwise and then examine if
             any offence is prima facie committed by all or
             any of the accused.”
        35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an
        accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has
        been held that 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. This Court
        held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature
        of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence,
        both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to
        whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against
        the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                           1261

                     M/s JM Laboratories and Others v.
                    State of Andhra Pradesh and Another

           a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary
           evidence before summoning the accused.
           36. The said law would be consistently following by this
           Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of
           Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015)
           4 SCC 609, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad
           Tunda and Others (2015) 12 SCC 420 and Krishna Lal
           Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
           (2021) 5 SCC 435.
           37. Recently, a Bench of this Court to which one of us
           (Gavai, J.) was a Member, in the case of Lalankumar Singh
           and Others v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC
           1383 (supra), has observed thus:
                “38. 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 order is liable to be
                set aside if no reasons are given therein while
                coming to the conclusion that there is a prima
                facie case against the accused. No doubt, that
                the order need not contain detailed reasons.
                A reference in this respect could be made to
                the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil
                Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation9,
                which reads thus:
                       “51. On the other hand, Section 204
                       of the Code deals with the issue
                       of process, if in the opinion of the
                       Magistrate taking cognizance of an
                       offence, there is sufficient ground
                       for proceeding. This section relates
                       to commencement of a criminal
                       proceeding. If the Magistrate taking
                       cognizance of a case (it may be the
                       Magistrate receiving the complaint or
1262                                               [2025] 1 S.C.R.

           Supreme Court Reports


        to whom it has been transferred under
        Section 192), upon a consideration
        of the materials before him (i.e.
        the complaint, examination of the
        complainant and his witnesses, if
        present, or report of inquiry, if any),
        thinks that there is a prima facie
        case for proceeding in respect of
        an offence, he shall issue process
        against the accused.
        52. A wide discretion has been given
        as to grant or refusal of process and
        it must be judicially exercised. A
        person ought not to be dragged into
        court merely because a complaint has
        been filed. If a prima facie case has
        been made out, the Magistrate ought
        to issue process and it cannot be
        refused merely because he thinks that
        it is unlikely to result in a conviction.
        53. However, 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 order
        is liable to be set aside if no reason
        is given therein while coming to the
        conclusion that there is prima facie
        case against the accused, though
        the order need not contain detailed
        reasons. A fortiori, the order would be
        bad in law if the reason given turns
        out to be ex facie incorrect.”
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        1263

                        M/s JM Laboratories and Others v.
                       State of Andhra Pradesh and Another

                    39. A similar view has been taken by this Court
                    in the case of Ashoke Mal Bafna (supra).
                    40. In the present case, leaving aside there
                    being no reasons in support of the order of the
                    issuance of process, as a matter of fact, it is
                    clear from the order of the learned Single Judge
                    of the High Court, that there was no such order
                    passed at all. The learned Single Judge of the
                    High Court, based on the record, has presumed
                    that there was an order of issuance of process.
                    We find that such an approach is unsustainable
                    in law. The appeal therefore deserves to be
                    allowed.”
9.    In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have
      been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is
      totally a non-speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view
      taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of
      2024 titled “INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air
      Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra
      Pradesh”, and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court
      in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd.
      and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others1, Sunil
      Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation2, Mehmood Ul
      Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others3 and Krishna
      Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4,
      the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
10. In the result, we pass the following order:
      (i)    The present appeal is allowed;
      (ii)   The impugned judgment and order dated 4th October 2023
             passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in
             Criminal Petition No. 5766 of 2023 is quashed and set aside; and



1    1997 INSC 714 : (1998) 5 SCC 749
2    2015 INSC 18 : (2015) 4 SCC 609
3    2015 INSC 983 : (2015) 12 SCC 420
4    2021 INSC 160 : (2021) 5 SCC 435
1264                                                     [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     (iii) The summoning order dated 19th July 2023 passed by the Trial
           Court in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 and the proceedings arising
           therefrom are also quashed and set aside.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey