In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against M/S JM Laboratories & Others, emphasizing that a Judicial Magistrate cannot issue a summoning order without recording valid reasons. The apex court held that the issuing process against an accused is a serious matter and must reflect due application of mind.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Kurnool Urban, Andhra Pradesh, alleging that JM Laboratories, along with its managing and silent partners, had manufactured and distributed substandard drugs in violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The complaint specifically referred to MOXIGOLD-CV 625 (Amoxycillin & Potassium Clavunate Tablets IP), which was tested and found to be “Not of Standard Quality” as per a Government Analyst’s report dated December 15, 2018.
Subsequently, on July 19, 2023, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, summoned the appellants, directing them to appear in court. Challenging this order, JM Laboratories and its partners approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. However, the High Court dismissed the plea on October 4, 2023, prompting the appellants to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues Involved
1. Lack of Reasons in the Summoning Order
The primary issue in the case was whether the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, had properly applied judicial mind before issuing the summoning order. The Supreme Court observed that the order did not record any reasons or considerations, making it a non-speaking order, which is legally untenable.
2. Violation of Due Process Under Criminal Law
The Supreme Court examined whether the issuance of process was in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Citing previous judgments, the court ruled that summoning an accused cannot be treated as a mere formality and that due process must be followed before directing an accused to appear in court.
3. Bar of Limitation Under Section 468(2) CrPC
Another issue raised by the appellants was the delay in filing the complaint. The Analytical Report declaring the drug as substandard was dated December 15, 2018, but the complaint was filed in May 2023—beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed under Section 468(2) of CrPC. While the Supreme Court did not specifically base its ruling on limitation grounds, it acknowledged the argument.
4. Non-Compliance with Section 202 CrPC
The appellants also argued that the Magistrate had failed to comply with Section 202 of CrPC, which mandates an inquiry before issuing summons to accused individuals residing outside the jurisdiction of the court. This non-compliance further rendered the summoning order invalid.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, delivered its judgment in Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5067 of 2024), ruling in favor of JM Laboratories.
The court noted that the summoning order issued by the Magistrate was a non-speaking order, devoid of any reasoning. Citing its previous judgments, the Supreme Court reiterated that:
“Summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. The Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The order must reflect due consideration of the nature of allegations and supporting evidence.”
The bench also referenced its ruling in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, which held that:
“Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the evidence and apply judicial discretion before summoning an accused.”
The Supreme Court further relied on judgments in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015) 4 SCC 609 and Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420, reinforcing that a summoning order must not be an empty formality.
Final Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:
– Quashed the High Court’s order dated October 4, 2023.
– Set aside the summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate on July 19, 2023.
– Dismissed the criminal proceedings initiated in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 against JM Laboratories and its partners.
