Allahabad HC Flags Procedural Flaws, Quashes Drugs Case Summons Against Pharma Firm
Allahabad High Court
New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court has quashed the summoning order issued against Associated Biotech and its directors in a drugs (Amoxycillin) quality case, holding that the trial court failed to comply with statutory safeguards and passed a "cryptic and unreasoned" order.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Vikas Budhwar, who examined whether the Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Aligarh, had adhered to the requirements of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, while summoning the accused.
The case stemmed from an inspection carried out at Vimla Medical Store, Aligarh on August 23, 2023. A sample of Amoxycillin was drawn and later tested by the Government Analyst, Lucknow, who reported on October 13, 2023, that the drug did not conform to standards of the Indian Pharmacopoeia. Subsequent inquiry revealed that the medicines had been supplied through M/s Somkee India Pvt. Ltd., which had procured them from M/s Associated Biotech. A complaint was filed on September 23, 2024, and on November 15, 2024, the Special Judge summoned the company and its directors under Sections 18 and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Challenging the summoning order, the applicants contended that:
- The order was non-speaking, unreasoned, and failed to even record the complainant’s case.
- Their statutory right under Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to seek retesting from a central laboratory was denied.
- The Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to summon them without a committal order from the Magistrate under Section 193 CrPC/213 BNSS.
- Since the complaint was filed after BNSS-2023 came into force, they were entitled to be heard at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 223(1) BNSS.
The Additional Government Advocate, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, argued that prima facie offenses were indeed disclosed from the complaint. However, he conceded that the summoning order did not pass the test of legality as laid down by the Supreme Court and therefore should be set aside and the matter remitted back for fresh consideration.
The High Court found that the summoning order of November 15, 2024:
- Did not mention whether the accused had been given a chance to be heard as required under Section 223(1) BNSS.
- Was cryptic, lacking reasons, and failed to reflect even the basic case of the complainant.
- Violated the standards set by the Supreme Court in JM Laboratories v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 INSC 127) and other rulings, which require speaking and reasoned orders while issuing summons.
Final Ruling:
Quashing the order, Justice Budhwar ruled;
“The order dated 15.11.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 3654 of 2024 summoning the applicants under Section 18 and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, VIII, Aligarh is set aside; the matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.”
To view the official judgement, click the link below:
