Applicant sought quashing of a Drugs and Cosmetics Act complaint and summoning order. Finding the summoning order non-speaking and unreasoned, inconsistent with the Supreme Court's JM Laboratories mandate, the High Court set it aside and remitted the matter to the trial court for a fresh order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142259
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13477 of 2025
Applicant :- Shivam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Mishra,Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
brother of the applicant and took some packets of medicine and the opposite party no. 2 pressurized the applicant to sign over the certain papers, else criminal prosecution would be lodged. With respect to certain alleged irregularities, three FIRs came to be lodged being FIR No. 0115 of 2022, under Section 420, 275 and 276 IPC, FIR No. 0116 of 2022, under Section 8/22 of N.D.P.S. Act and third FIR No. 0117 of 2022, under Section 3/25 Arms Act. A fictitious recovery memo was also prepared by the SHO along with police officials wherein it was alleged that as per the information so received by the police officials through an informer that a person having generic medicine is coming from Kasganj side and he is to sell the medicine at Patyali. On the basis of the said inspection, certain recoveries were sought to be made and thereafter a complaint came to be lodged under Section 18/27, 18A, 17B, 28-A, 28-B of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 by the opposite party no. 2, pursuant whereto the applicant came to be summoned on 19.09.2024.
" पततवललपपशहहई।पततवललआजवतसतपबहसतलबलननयतहह।पततवललपरपररवतदलकक ओरसपनवदतनअपरजजलतशतसककयअजधवकतउपसससत।
ससनततसतपततवललकतअवललकननकयत।
पततवललकपअवललकनसपनवनदतहहनकपररवतदपतजलजखतरपसपऔषजधएएवपसतधन सतमगलअजधननयम 1940 ककधतरत 32 (1) कपअनतररतऔषजधननरलककजलनकललकसपवक हहउसकपदतरतअपनपपदलयपतरतययकतननवरहनकरतपहहयपपसतसतनकयतरयतहह।ऐसलदशतमम पररवतदलयतसतसकययककपरलकतकरतयतजतनतआवशयकनहहहह।अततअनभ०नशवमजररयप सममनतलबहल।पततवललवतसतपहतजजरलनदनतएक 10.10.2024 कलपपशहल। "
"9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a nonspeaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and
Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood U Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others and Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."
Order Date :- 20.8.2025 A. Prajapati
Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a non-speaking summoning order lacking recital of the complainant's case or prima facie assessment can be sustained under Section 528 BNSS.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/S J.M. Laboratories Vs. State of Andhra PradeshRelied on¶11
SLP (Criminal) No.5067 of 2024, M/S J.M. Laboratories Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 30.1.2025
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shivam
State of U.P.
Opposite Party No. 2 (Drug Inspector)
Vikas Budhwar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
