SC quashes proceedings against two medical firms, faults summoning orders

The court, dealing with the company producing medical gases, said the magistrate’s order summoning the accused must reflect application of mind. In the case over alleged manufacturing of sub-standard quality drugs, the bench said the summoning order was totally a “non-speaking one”.

As per a PTI report, the firm had appealed against a October 2023 judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which dismissed its plea to quash the proceedings in a Kurnool trial court.

“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 magistrate has issued the process without assigning any reasons,” the bench said, referring to the submissions of the firm’s counsel.

It said, “In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non-speaking one.” In the case of the firm producing medical gases, the top court said the trial court order, except recording the complainant’s submissions, did not record any reasons to issue process against the accused.

Referring to one of its verdicts, the top court said, “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.” It said the judgement held that the magistrate was not a “silent spectator” at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused.

“In the present case also, we find that there is no application of mind even for the namesake by the magistrate while issuing the process. On this ground also, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be quashed and set aside,” the bench said.

Here, the medical gases firm and its managing director had appealed against a January 2024 judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

The high court dismissed their plea seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against them on a complaint alleging violation of provision of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Besides quashing the high court’s verdict, the apex court set aside the trial court’s January 2018 summoning order and the proceedings arising out of it.

The apex court also set aside the high court’s order against the firm and others in the case related to alleged manufacturing of sub-standard quality drugs.

It quashed the trial court’s summoning order of July 2023 and the related proceedings.

It noted in May 2019, the drugs inspector, Kurnool Urban, filed a complaint in the court under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, against the company, its managing partner and others.

It came on record, in September, 2018, the complainant picked up sample of a drug manufactured by the firm for analysis and a subsequent report declared the drug sample as “not of standard quality”.

The appellants were accused of violating the provisions of the 1940 Act by manufacturing, selling and distributing the poor quality drugs.

Following the complaint, the trial court summoned the appellants.