LexM/S JM LABORATORIES AND OTHERS versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.