LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

INOX AIR PRODUCTS LIMITED NOW KNOWN AS INOX AIR PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1235 · Decided: 30-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1235 : 2025 INSC 128
INOX Air Products Limited now known as INOX  
Air Products Private Limited and Another 
v. 
The State of Andhra Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal no. 486 of 2025)
30 January 2025
[B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether selling of Nitrous Oxide I.P. by the appellant no. 1 company 
to the unlicensed accused No.3 firm which does not possess 
license under Form 20B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, 
was in contravention of s.18(a)(vi) read with r.65(5)(1)(b) of the 
Rules, punishable u/s.27(d) of the said Act.
Headnotes†
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – ss.3(f), 18(a)(vi), 27(d) – 
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – rr.65(5)(1)(b), 70, Form 
20B, 25, 26 – Manufacture and sale of drugs – Condition of 
licences – Meaning of term “manufacture” – Appellant no. 1, 
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of industrial 
and medical gases in India – Complaint lodged by Drugs 
Inspector that appellant no. 1 sold Nitrous Oxide I.P. to the 
accused No.3 firm which did not have license for sale and 
was in contravention of s.18(a)(vi) read with r.65(5)(1)(b) of 
the Rules, punishable u/s.27(d) of the said Act – Trial court 
took the complaint on its file and issued summons to accused 
persons including the appellants – Appellants filed petition 
before the High Court praying for calling of the records on 
the file of the trial court and to quash the same against the 
appellants – High Court dismissed the petition – Correctness:
Held: Both appellant no.1 and accused no.3 possessed licence 
under Form 25 – Submission that the licence under Form 25 is 
subject to Form 20B and since accused no.3 did not have licence 
under Form 20B, sale to accused no.3 was in contravention of 
s.18(a)(vi) is totally fallacious in nature – ‘Manufacture’ includes 
any process or part of a process for making, altering, ornamenting, 
* Author
1236
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
finishing, packing, labelling, breaking up or otherwise treating or 
adopting any drug or cosmetic with a view to its sale or distribution – 
Accused no.3, holding licence under Form 25, entitled to sell and 
distribute the product received from appellant no.1 after altering, 
breaking it up and packing it in smaller containers – Even if the 
allegations made in the complaint are taken at its face value, no 
case made out for offence punishable u/s. 18(a)(vi) rw s.27(d) – 
Furthermore, in the order passed by the Magistrate while issuing 
the process, except recording the submissions of the complainant, 
no reasons recorded for issuing the process against accused 
persons – 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 – No application of mind even for the 
namesake by Magistrate while issuing process – Also, the High 
Court totally misdirected itself – Interpretation by High Court 
that since accused no.3 was given licence to manufacture, he 
was not authorized to purchase it from appellant no.1, is without 
considering the plain nature of s.3(f) and is totally unsustainable 
in law – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside – Summoning 
order also quashed and set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 – s.482. [Paras 21-33, 35, 38-41]
Case Law Cited
Lalankumar Singh and Others v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 
INSC 1059 : [2022] 14 SCR 573 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383; 
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 – referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Black Law’s Dictionary, 5th Edition – referred to.
List of Acts
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 
1945; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 
1237
INOX Air Products Limited now known as INOX Air Products Private 
Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
List of Keywords
Nitrous Oxide I.P.; Industrial and medical gases; License for 
manufacture of Nitrous Oxide I.P.; License for sale of Nitrous 
Oxide I.P.; License under Form 20B of the Drugs and Cosmetics 
Act, 1940; Meaning of term “ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.