Partly allowed

Marc Life Sciences Sikkim and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2025NA528/19966/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants summoned for selling sub-standard Co-Trimoxazole tablets challenged a cryptic summoning order under Section 528 BNSS. Both sides agreed the order was unreasoned and non-speaking. The High Court set aside the summoning order and remitted the matter to the Magistrate for a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 01.04.2024 set aside; matter remitted for fresh order by court below.

Marc Life Sciences Sikkim and 5 Others Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:120296

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19966 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Marc Life Sciences Sikkim And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shriprakash Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sriprakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This Court on 07.07.2025 requiring learned AGA to obtain instructions.

¶8

Today Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA has produced before this Court the instructions under the Signatures of the opposite party no.1 & 2 Drug Inspector. He submits that they are not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of documents available on record.

¶9

This is an application U/s 528 BNSS filed for quashing the summoning order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in Sessions Case 246 of 2024 pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amroha arising out of complaint case no. 2748 of 2024 U/s 32 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for offences U/s 18(a) (i) read with section 27(d) of the said Act.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a complaint stood preferred by the opposite party no.2 Drug Inspector Amroha with an allegations that on 30.04.2022 Drug Inspector conducted an inspection of the medicine shop known as M/s Vishwa Karma Medical Store situated at Delhi Road, Zoya, Police Station Didauli, District Amroha wherein the samples were drawn and taken for examination analyst in form-17. The samples were sent to Government Analyst for examination in form-18 on 30.04.2022 and, further government analyst vide its report dated 12.07.2022 prepared in form-13 declaring the drug "Co-Trimoxazole Tablets I.P. (Marcoprim) (for vet use), batch no. SMT 374, M/D-12/2021, E./D-11/2024" was sub-standard. Thereafter the opposite party no.2 along with the report of the government analyst sent a notice

¶11

to the applicant on 06.08.2022 seeking information regarding the source from the purchase of sub-standard medicine.

¶12

On 15.12.2022, the medical store informed the drug inspector that the medicines was purchased from M/s Deep Pharma Traders Moradabad, U.P. thereafter a notice was sent to M/s Deep Pharma Traders who informed that the drug in question was procured from Marc India Ltd. and the information was issued to M/s Marc India Ltd. who did not respond. Thus, reminders were send, thereafter the M/s Marc India Ltd apprise the drug inspector that it was purchased from M/s Marc Sciences, Sikkim pursuant to wherein the complaint also stood preferred and by order dated 01.04.2024 the applicants came to be summoned U/s 18(a) (i) read with section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, by the court below.

¶13

Questioning the summoning order, the applicants have filed the present application.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that though on merits the allegations contained in the complaint do not constitute any penal provisions under which the applicants is being sought to be summoned but the sole and the fundamental question which arises that the summoning order has been passed in a cryptic manner without recording any reasons while satisfying that the prima-facie offences are made out. He submits that the summoning order is unreasoned, non speaking. Reliance has been placed upon the case of in SLP (Criminal) No.5067 of 2024, M/S J.M. Laboratories Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 30.1.2025 . Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

¶15

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that from the allegations contained in the complaint, prima facie offences are made out an the case is triable. However, he could not dispute the fact that the summoning order does not recite the case of the complainant and the same is non speaking, unreasoned. He thus submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

¶16

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

¶17

The summoning order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha reads as under:

¶18

"01.04.2024

¶19

आजयहपपपहहआ।पररवपद-पतपररवपद-पतअवललककत।अवललकनसस कवकदतहलतपहहककयहपररवपद-पतअकभययकगणमपकरलपइफसपइइससज, पसम ककशलररसतलगग, कनकतनककशलररसतलगग, कवकपनककशलररसतलगग, अकमतककशलर रसतलगग, कवभपसआनइदसयशगलकयमपरकस कवरदऔषधधकनरगककदपरप अनतगरतधपरप 18 (ए) 1 सपकठतधपरप 27 (डग) औषधधएवइपसपधन अधधकनयमपसकषतककयपगयपहह।

¶20

अततपररवपदकसरपममदजररधजसटरहल।

¶21

चचइककपररवपदगललकससवकहह।अततबयपनअनतगरतधपरप 200 दइ०प०सइ०कक आवशयकतपनहहहह।पररवपदकसअवललकनससकवकदतहहककअकभययकगणकल धपरप 18 (ए) 1 सपकठतधपरप 27 (डग) औषधधएवइपसपधनअधधकनयमकस अपरपधकसधलएतलबककयसजपनसकपआधपरपयपरपहह।अततधपरप 202 दइ०प०सइ०कसबयपननककभगआवशयकतपनहहहह।

¶22

अततअकभययकगणकलधपरप 18 (ए) 1 सपकठतधपरप 27 (डग) औषधधएवइ पसपधनअधधकनयमकस अपरपधममकवचपरणहसतयतलबककयपजपतपहह। अकभययकगणकस कवरदसमनजपरगहन।पतपवलगवपसतसहपधजरगकदनपइक 20.04.2024 कलपसशहल।"

¶23

A perusal of the summoning order would reveal that the same is non speaking, unreasoned and it does not recite the case of the complainant less to say about prima-facie application of the penal provisions. In the case of J.M Lab (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:

¶24

"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."

¶25

Since the aforesaid aspect is completely lacking, thus the summoning order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the

¶26

application is being decided in the following terms:

¶27

a. The order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in Sessions Case 246 of 2024 pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amroha arising out of complaint case no. 2748 of 2024 U/s 32 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for offences U/s 18(a) (i) read with section 27(d) of the said Act is set aside.

¶28

b The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order .

¶29

c. For facilitation in speedy disposal, the parties shall place this order before the court below by 31.07.2025.

¶30

The instructions marked as Appendix- A.

¶31

O rder Date :- 21.7.2025 C. MANI

¶32

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

Marc Life Sciences Sikkim and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marc Life Sciences Sikkim and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases