Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a Magistrate's summoning order in a complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 alleging manufacture of a drug not of standard quality, because the order assigned no reasons at all and did not reflect application of mind. Following its decision of the same date in INOX Air Products and settled precedent, it set aside the High Court's refusal to quash the proceedings.
Issues
- Whether a summoning order issued by a Magistrate without recording any reasons, and not reflecting application of mind to the complaint and the material, is sustainable.
- Whether the High Court erred in declining to quash the complaint proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Provisions considered
- Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Relying on Sunil Bharti Mittal and Lalankumar Singh (as extracted in INOX Air Products), the Court reiterated that the words 'sufficient ground for proceeding' require the Magistrate to form an opinion after applying his mind and to state it in the order, though detailed reasons are not needed; an order giving no reasons is liable to be set aside. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court had dismissed the appellants' petition under this provision to quash the complaint case; the Supreme Court set aside that dismissal and quashed the summoning order and the proceedings. (¶¶ 2, 10)
- Sections 16, 18(a)(i), 27(d) and 32, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940These were the provisions under which the Drugs Inspector's complaint alleged manufacture and sale of a drug not of standard quality. The Court did not examine the merits of the charge, deciding the appeal only on the absence of reasons in the summoning order. (¶¶ 3.1, 3.2, 6, 7)
Held
- Summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter; the Magistrate's order must show that he applied his mind to the facts and the law and found sufficient ground to proceed. An order issuing process without any reasons is liable to be set aside, though it need not contain detailed reasons. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The summoning order in this case, which merely called upon the accused to appear in respect of the stated charge, gave no reasons even in name and was wholly non-speaking; it therefore could not stand. (¶¶ 7, 9)
- Since the appeal succeeded on this short ground, the Court did not decide the appellants' other contentions, including limitation under Section 468(2) CrPC and non-compliance with Section 202 CrPC. (¶¶ 5, 6)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's order dated 04.10.2023 set aside; the summoning order dated 19.07.2023 and the proceedings in the complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool quashed.