Allahabad High Court
Kalluram Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:171179
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35576 of 2025
Kalluram Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ajay Kumar Pandey, Jaideep Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.
2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order/notice dated 14-06-2024 passed by Special Judge (The Drugs and Cosmetics Act)/Additional Session Judge Court No. 1, District- Chitrakoot in Complaint Case No. 363 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Lavlesh Singh and another) under Sections 18(c), 18a(vi), 18A, 18B, 27b(ii), 28 and 28A The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Police Station- Bharatkoop, District- Chitrakoot.
4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party No. 2, against the applicant under Sections 18(c), 18a(vi), 18A, 18B, 27b(ii), 28 and 28A The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, with an allegation that on 22.02.2023 at about 4.00 in the evening, on the basis a complaint so received by the officials including the opposite party o. 2, an inspection was conducted in the clinic and the drugs found on the counter and when the licence was asked for the same was not handed over. The necessary formalities under Form-16, serial no. 1 to 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with the rules were undertaken and four samples of the drugs were drawn as per the procedure and the said drugs were sent. Thereafter the complaint came to be lodged and the applicant came to be summoned by the Court on 14.06.2024 under Sections 18(c), 18a(vi), 18A, 18B, 27b(ii), 28 and 28A The Drugs and Cosmetics Act by Special Judge (The Drugs and Cosmetics Act)/Additional Session Judge Court No. 1, District- Chitrakoot.
5. Questioning the said order, the applicant has been filed the present application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one reason, firstly, it has been passed in a mechanical manner without reciting the case of the complainant without recording any prima facie recording with regard to the applicability/ attraction of the penal sections and secondly, in view of the express provisions contained under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with Section 193 of the Cr.P.C./ 213 BNSS. Until and unelss the case is committed to the Sessions by the Jurisdiction Magistrate, no cognizance could have been taken in that regard. He seeks to rely upon the the judgement in SLP (Criminal) No.5067 of 2024, M/S J.M. Laboratories Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 30.1.2025 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and others, (2021) 12 SCC 674. However, he submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.
7. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that form the perusal of the allegations contained in the complaint prima facie offences are made out and the case is triable, however, he could not dispute the fact that the summoning order has not been passed as per the mandate in M/S J.M. Laboratories (supra). He submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
9. The summoning order dated 14.06.2024 summoning the applicant under Sections 18(c), 18a(vi), 18A, 18B, 27b(ii), 28 and 28A The Drugs and Cosmetics Act reads as under:
"?? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???????? ????? /???????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ????? ???? ? ???????? ??????? ?? ??????? ????-18(c), 18a (vi), 18A ??? 18B, 27b(ii), 28 and 28A ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? 1940 ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ???????? ??????? ????
???? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???????/?????????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? 19.07.2024 ?? ??? ???"
10. A perusal of the summoning order would reveal that the summoning order is non-speaking and unreasoned and it does not even recite the case of the complainant less to say prima facie application of the penal sections.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JM Laboratories (supra), para 9 whereof is quoted hereinunder.-
"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."
12. Since the summoning order itself is non-speaking and unreasoned and cryptic in nature, thus, it cannot be sustained.
13. The summoning order dated 14-06-2024 passed by Special Judge (The Drugs and Cosmetics Act)/Additional Session Judge Court No. 1, District- Chitrakoot in Complaint Case No. 363 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Lavlesh Singh and another) is set aside.
14. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
15. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 10.10.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.
16. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case.
17. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.) September 23, 2025 A. Prajapati