M/S. JM LABORATORIES AND OTHERS [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER [RESPONDENT(S)]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(2JB, B.R. GAVAI and AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH JJ., delivered by B.R. GAVAI J.)
The Supreme Court recently quashed the summoning order and criminal proceedings against M/S JM Laboratories and its partners, ruling that the order lacked reasoning. The appeal was filed against the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision, which had dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the trial court proceedings. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the Magistrate had issued the process without assigning any reasons, making the summoning order completely non-speaking.
The case arose from a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The complaint alleged that JM Laboratories had manufactured and distributed a substandard drug, MOXIGOLD-CV 625 (Amoxycillin & Potassium Clavunate Tablets IP), thereby violating Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16 of the Act, which is punishable under Section 27(d). Based on this complaint, the Magistrate issued summons directing the appellants to appear before the court. Challenging the proceedings, the appellants approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that the case was barred by limitation under Section 468(2) of the CrPC. However, the High Court dismissed their petition, leading them to appeal before the Supreme Court.
A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the summoning order issued by the Magistrate was legally unsustainable as it lacked reasoning. The Court stated that no reasons had been assigned, not even for formality, making the summoning order completely non-speaking. The Supreme Court observed that the Magistrate, while issuing the order, must provide reasons indicating why the accused must face trial. The absence of such reasoning makes the order arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The Court further emphasized that judicial orders must be well-reasoned to ensure fairness and transparency in criminal proceedings.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court were Lack of Reasoning, i.e., the Court held that judicial orders, including summoning orders, must contain reasons to justify the decision. The Magistrate’s failure to do so rendered the order legally invalid; Barred by Limitation – The appellants contended that the case was time-barred under Section 468(2) of the CrPC. While the High Court dismissed this claim, the Supreme Court found merit in the argument, Judicial Precedents, i.e., the Court referred to past rulings emphasizing the importance of reasoned orders in criminal proceedings to prevent misuse of the legal process. Setting aside both the High Court and Trial Court’s orders, the Supreme Court quashed the summoning order and the subsequent criminal proceedings against JM Laboratories. It reiterated that a non-speaking summoning order violates principles of natural justice and fair trial. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, reinforcing the necessity for courts to provide well-reasoned decisions in all judicial matters.
