Shankar Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106873

Court No. - 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18624 of 2025

Applicant :- Shankar Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Narayan,Chandrakant Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Abhishek Narayan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

This Court on 23.05.2025 had required the learned AGA to obtain instructions. Today, learned AGA has made a statement at bar that he has obtained instructions and according to him he does not propose to take any further time and the application be decided on the documents available on record.

¶9

With the consent of the parties, the application is decided at the first stage.

¶10

This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 15.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Drugs & Cosmetic Act/ Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chirakoot in Sessions Case (complaint case) no. 289 of 2024 (State vs. Shankar Lal & Ors) U/s Section 18(a)(i)(vi), 18A, 18B, 27(d) & 28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, P.S. Pahadi, District Chitrakoot.

¶11

The case of the applicant is that the applicant happens to be an owner of M/s Shankar Medical Store situated at Pahadi, District Chitrakoot and possess a license issued by the competent authority by which the applicant has been permitted to sell stock exhibit or offer to sale or distribute durgs under the provisions of Durgs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. An inspection is stated to have been conducted by the opposite party no.2 in the medical shop of the applicant n 08.06.2021 wherein the samples of Rumental Bolus was manufactured by M/s Inst Pharma was collected and a report came to be submitted on 13.08.2021 that the sample did not confirm to declare formula in respect of content of Antimony Potassium Tartrate and Ferrous Sulphate. Thereafter the

¶12

proceedings stood initiated and a complaint came to be filed on 07.05.2024 against the applicant and five others U/s 18(a)(i)(vi), 18A, 18B, 27(d) & 28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. On the basis of the complaint on 15.05.2024, the court of Special Judge, Drugs and Cosmetics/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot, proceeded to summon the applicant under section 18(a)(i)(vi), 18A, 18B, 27(d) & 28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though there are various grounds available with the applicant with regard to the fact that none of the offences stands attracted and no offences have been committed but the root ground which goes to the root of the matter is that the summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without according any satisfaction regarding invocation of the penal provisions. He submits that on mere asking the applicant have been summoned without there being any recital of the case of the complainant. He seeks upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SLP (Criminal) No.5067 of 2024, M/S J.M. Laboratories Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 30.1.2025. He thus submits that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

¶14

Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA on the other hand submits that from the allegations contained in the complaint prima facie offences are made out. He further submits that the summoning order does not disclose the reasons and the basis on which the applicant has been summoned while according satisfaction. He submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

¶15

I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

¶16

The order dated 15.05.2024 summoning the applicant under the above noted sections reads as under:

¶17

" आजयहपररववदउतरपददशरवजयऔषधधननररककबवबदव / अनतररकपभवरजनपद नचतककटखवदससरकवएवबऔषधधपशवसनउतरपददशसदनवपकरअनभयसकगणशबकरलवल, जयनरवयणगसपव, ननशवबकनतपवठर, ननलदशशवहममनदधजबगडवयरदकटर, कसरनवलकसमवरएनपटदल वएच०एम०कचववलवकदनवरदधवरव-18 (a) (i) (vi), 18A एवब 18B,27 (d) व 28A औषधधएवबपसवधनसवमगरअधधननयम 1940 थवनवपहवडरजनपदनचतककटकदअनतगरतपवप हहआ।

¶18

आददशहहआनकदजररधजसटरहह।नवपकर/अनभयसकगणकहनहनटसजवररहह। पतववलरववसतदहवधजररनदनवबक 20.06.2024 कहपदशहह। "

¶19

A perusal of the order dated 15.05.2024 summoning the applicant under the above noted section would go to show that there has been no recital of the case of the complainant and rather without there being any recording of satisfaction the applicant has been summoned and the order in question is cryptic, non speaking. In the case of M/S J.M. Laboratories (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:

¶20

"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 non-speaking 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."

¶21

Since the order of summoning the applicant is non speaking, unreasoned and it has not been passed as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S J.M. Laboratories (Supra). Thus, this Court has no option but to quash the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the court of Special Judge Drugs and Cosmetics Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, court no.1, Chitrakoot.

¶22

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with the following terms:

¶23

a. The summoning order dated 15.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Drugs and Cosmetic Act/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot in complaint case no. 289 of 2024 (State vs. Shankar Lal & Ors) U/s Section 18(a)(i)(vi), 18A, 18B, 27(d) & 28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, P.S. Pahadi, District Chitrakoot is set aside.

¶24

b. The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

¶25

c. For early disposal, the certified copy of the order be furnished

¶26

before the court below by 25.07.2025.

¶27

d. The passing of the order may not construed to the expression that this court has adjudicated the matter on the merits. However the court below is to pass an order strictly in accordance with law.

¶28

The instructions filed today taken on record as appendix-A.

¶29

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 C. MANI

¶30

( Vikas Budhwar,J. )

¶31

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shankar Lal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Lal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases