A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The present judgment concerns M/s JM Laboratories and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2025), where the Supreme Court set aside an order of a Magistrate that had summoned the appellants in proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 after a non-speaking summoning order was issued. The appellants were accused of manufacturing and distributing a drug declared “Not of Standard Quality” by the Government Analyst. Although multiple procedural and limitation objections were raised, the Supreme Court decided the appeal on the narrow but fundamental ground that the Magistrate’s order summoning the accused did not record any reasons and was therefore legally defective.

The Court reiterated settled principles that issuance of process is not a mere formality and that under Section 204 CrPC the Magistrate must apply judicial mind and reflect in the order the reasons for forming an opinion that sufficient ground for proceeding exists. Reliance was placed on a line of precedents including Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI and other subsequent authorities. Because the summoning order (dated 19 July 2023) was wholly non-speaking and bereft even of perfunctory reasons, the High Court judgment dismissing the appellants’ Section 482 CrPC petition was quashed and the summoning order and proceedings arising therefrom were set aside.

The decision emphasises procedural fairness at the initial stage of criminal proceedings and confirms that absence of minimal reasoning in an order issuing process renders the order vulnerable to quashing.

Keywords: summoning order; non-speaking; Section 204 CrPC; Drugs and Cosmetics Act; quashing; application of mind.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The core procedural controversy concerns a Magistrate’s power to issue process under Section 204 CrPC and the requirement that a summoning order must reflect application of mind. The complaint by the Drugs Inspector, Kurnool Urban alleged manufacture and distribution by M/s J.M. Laboratories of MOXIGOLD-CV 625 which a Government Analyst reported as “Not of Standard Quality” after a failed dissolution test. The trial court summoned the accused by an order dated 19 July 2023; that order was terse and devoid of any reasons explaining why a prima facie case existed. The appellants sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC contending inter alia violation of limitation under Section 468(2) CrPC, non-compliance with Section 202 CrPC, and other statutory defects.

The High Court dismissed their petition, after which special leave was granted to challenge that dismissal. The Supreme Court, while noting other grounds urged by appellants, preferred to decide on the short but decisive ground of absence of reasons in the summoning order. The Court applied settled jurisprudence that the issuance of process cannot be a perfunctory act and that an order summoning an accused must not be non-speaking; it must state, even if briefly, the basis on which the Magistrate concluded that sufficient ground for proceeding exists. The judgment re-emphasises the protective role of judicial scrutiny at the threshold to prevent unwarranted invocation of criminal law merely because a complaint is filed.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 7 September 2018, the Drugs Inspector took a sample of MOXIGOLD-CV 625 (Amoxycillin & Potassium Clavunate Tablets IP) bearing Batch No. BT170059F manufactured by M/s J.M. Laboratories. By memorandum, a sealed portion was sent to the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Vijayawada along with Form-18 through registered post. On 15 December 2018 the Government Analyst issued Form-13 declaring the sample “Not of Standard Quality” because it failed the Dissolution Test for Amoxycillin and Clavulanic Acid. Based on that report, a complaint under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was filed in the trial court on 29 May 2019 alleging offences under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16 and punishable under Section 27(d) of the DC Act.

The trial court summoned the appellants on 19 July 2023 to appear on 10 August 2023. The appellants challenged the summons by filing a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, asserting among other things that the complaint was barred by limitation because the analytical report dated 15 December 2018 and the complaint filed in May 2023 fell beyond the three-year period under Section 468(2) CrPC, and that Section 202 CrPC procedures were not complied with. The High Court dismissed the petition and the appellants secured special leave to appeal. Throughout these factual strands the critical procedural defect identified by the Supreme Court was that the summons order itself contained no reasons or even minimal reasoning.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a summoning order that does not record any reasons is legally sustainable?
ii. Whether the trial court complied with the requirement of applying judicial mind under Section 204 CrPC before issuing process?
iii. Whether lapse of time between analytical report (15.12.2018) and filing of complaint (29.05.2019) attracts Section 468(2) CrPC limitation arguments?
iv. Whether non-compliance of Section 202 CrPC (if any) affects the validity of the proceedings?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the proceedings were vitiated by multiple procedural defects. They urged that the complaint was time-barred under Section 468(2) CrPC because the analytical report dated 15 December 2018 preceded the complaint by more than three years. They argued non-compliance with Section 202 CrPC and that the trial court had not applied judicial mind while issuing the summons; the order was merely perfunctory and did not explain why a prima facie case existed. It was contended that issuance of process without reasons exposes accused persons to harassment and stigma and runs contrary to settled law that the Magistrate must reflect application of mind in the order issuing process. The appellants sought quashing of the summons and all proceedings arising therefrom.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondents submitted that the Government Analyst’s Form-13 constituted a sufficient basis to commence proceedings and that procedural objections could be examined at trial. It was contended that the Magistrate was entitled to issue process where prima facie material documentary and preliminary evidence existed. The State relied on the investigative and regulatory character of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to justify commencement of criminal proceedings. The respondents urged that limitations and technical objections were inappropriate to be decided at the threshold if the magistrate had prima facie material. However, the Court did not find it necessary to adjudicate those contentions as it decided the case on the non-speaking order ground.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal solely on the narrow but controlling ground that the summoning order dated 19 July 2023 was wholly non-speaking and therefore invalid. The Court reiterated the principle that issuance of process is not an empty formality; a Magistrate must apply mind before concluding that sufficient ground for proceeding exists under Section 204 CrPC. The Court relied on the precedent in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others which emphasises that the order summoning an accused must reflect that the Magistrate examined the nature of allegations and the oral and documentary evidence and formed an opinion that a prima facie case exists.

The Court also referred to Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P. and the recent decision in INOX Air Products Ltd. (SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024) for consistent reinforcement of this rule. The bench observed that though detailed reasons are not necessary, some statement of reasons or indication of application of mind must appear in the order; absent that, the order is legally infirm. Applying that doctrine, the Court found the summoning order in the present case merely recorded that attendance was necessary and directed appearance without any finding or even a brief rationale.

As a consequence, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order dismissing the Section 482 CrPC petition, set aside the summoning order dated 19 July 2023 and quashed all proceedings arising therefrom. The Court expressly declined to traverse the other grounds (limitation, Section 202 non-compliance) because the non-speaking order made consideration unnecessary. The relief granted was complete quashing of the defective process, and pending applications were disposed of.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive ratio is that a Magistrate issuing process under Section 204 CrPC must apply judicial mind and record reasons (even briefly) that justify formation of an opinion that sufficient ground for proceeding exists. An order issuing process that is non-speaking i.e., that lacks any indication of the materials considered or the basis for the conclusion is vulnerable to quashing. This principle flows from constitutional guarantees and procedural fairness since criminal prosecutions affect liberty and reputation; therefore, the threshold scrutiny protects against launching criminal law as a matter of course. The Supreme Court applied established authorities to hold that absence of any reasoning in the summoning order was fatal and warranted setting aside the proceedings.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed (obiter) that while the order need not contain elaborate reasons, perfunctory compliance is inadequate; minimal indication of application of mind suffices. The Court also noted that issues such as limitation under Section 468(2) CrPC and compliance with Section 202 CrPC are significant and may merit consideration on merits, but where a primary procedural infirmity exists in the order issuing process, it is appropriate to decide on that ground first to avoid unnecessary adjudication of collateral technicalities. The judgment reiterates the protective function of preliminary judicial scrutiny to prevent abuse of criminal processes.

c. GUIDELINES 

1. A Magistrate issuing process under Section 204 CrPC must record reasons (even brief) showing application of mind that sufficient ground for proceeding exists.

2. The order need not be a detailed judgment but must not be a mere formality; it should refer to the material and the nature of allegations relied upon.

3. If a summoning order is non-speaking and bereft of reasons, it is liable to be quashed on Section 482 CrPC petition.

4. Where a primary procedural infirmity exists, courts may decide on that ground without addressing other objections such as limitation or technical non-compliance with preliminary inquiry provisions.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces a consistent thread of jurisprudence that protects accused persons from being dragged into criminal courts by mechanically issued process. It places on record the minimum standards of judicial reasoning required at the threshold of criminal proceedings. Practically, the decision signals to Magistrates and prosecuting agencies that reliance on a document such as a Form-13 or a complainant’s statement does not absolve the Magistrate from articulating why that material, when examined, discloses a prima facie case. For regulatory offences under statutes such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the decision does not close prosecutorial avenues but insists that their initiation comply with elementary procedural fairness.

The Court’s narrowly focused approach quashing the proceedings on the non-speaking order ground without adjudicating limitation or other technical pleas displays judicial restraint and economises adjudication while delivering a clear precedent on the limits of magistratial discretion in issuing process. Law students and practitioners should note that even brief reasoning satisfies the doctrine; total absence of reasons does not. The decision therefore strengthens due process at the stage where the criminal law is first invoked.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, 1997 INSC 714 : [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 12 : (1998) 5 SCC 749.
2. Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2015 INSC 18 : [2015] 1 SCR 377 : (2015) 4 SCC 609.
3. Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others, 2015 INSC 983 : [2015] 4 SCR 841 : (2015) 12 SCC 420.
4. Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2021 INSC 160 : [2021] 2 SCR 550 : (2021) 5 SCC 435.
5. 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.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 202, 204, 468(2), 482.
2. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Sections 16, 18(a)(i), 27(d), 32.