Allahabad High Court
Rafik Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135238
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26974 of 2025
Applicant :- Rafik Ahmad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, 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 entire proceedings of Case No.11371 of 2024 Special Case no.83 of 2025 (State Versus Rafik Ahmad) Under Section 18-A, 18(C)/ 27(b)(ii), 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act 1940, Police Station- Gajraula, District-Amroha pending in the court of learned Additional session Judge-l, Amroha including the summoning order dated 11.11.2024.
4. The case of the applicant is that on 05.11.2024, a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party No.2, Drug Inspector, Food Security and Drug Administration, District Amroha, under Section 18-A, 18(C)/ 27(b)(ii), 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act 1940 with an allegation that on 02.04.2024 on the basis of a secret tip so provided to the opposite party No.2, an inspection took place by a team of the officials, wherein one of the personnel of the applicant establishment tried to run wherein he was found indulging in offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. When the packet was checked then the following was found:
"???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ????? ???? spasmaxx (???? ?? ?????? Tramadol HCI, 50 mg/ ???????), Batch No. 100324-SM1, Exp Dt: 02/2026, Mfd by: M/s Smilex Pharmachem Drug Ind. Plot No. 33, 34 EPIP-II, Thana, Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh) ?? 144 ?????????, ?????????? ????? ???? Alprad 0.5 (???? ?? ?????? : Alprazolam IP, 0.5 mg/?????), Batch No. ???T-016, Exp Dt: 10/2025, Mfd by Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. (Unit-2) #31. Rajban Road, Nariwala, Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh) ?? 80 ??????? 08 ??????? ??? ??? 35 ??????? 07 ????? ??????? ???, ??? ???? ???? ???????/???? ?? 358 ????????? ????? ????"
5. On being required to submit the licence and the other documents inability was shown, the samples were drawn on 02.04.2024 as per the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act after tendering the amount and prepared the documents as per 17A. The copy of the inspection report was received by the applicant but they did not tender their signatures on the same, on 02.04.2024 the samples which were drawn was sent for analysis and as per the report of the analyst, the same was not found as per the specification thereafter on 11.07.2024, notice was issued for seeking explanation, however, no reply was submitted, thereafter a reminder was sent which was replied on 14.10.2024 and thereafter the complaint was preferred by the applicant which came to be summoned in Case No. 11371 of 2024 by the Court of CJM on 11.11.2024.
6. Questioning the said order, the applicant has been filed the present application.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that 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. 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. However, he submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.
8. 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.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
10. The summoning order dated 11.11.2024 summoning the applicant under Section 18-A, 18(C)/ 27(b)(ii), 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act 1940 reads as under:
"?? ?? ??????-???? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? 18 (c), 18A ??????? ???????? ???? 27(b)(ii) ? ???? 28 ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ???
????? ????????? ?? ?????? ????, ????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ???? 200 ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???? 18A, 18(c) / 27 (b)(ii), 28 ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ???? 202 ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ???
??? ???? ???????? ?? ???? 18A, 18(c) / 27 (b)(ii) 28 ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? 11.12.2024 ?? ??? ???? ????"
11. 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.
12. 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."
13. Since the summoning order itself is non-speaking and unreasoned and cryptic in nature, thus, it cannot be sustained.
14. The summoning order dated 11.11.2024 passed by learned Additional session Judge-I, Amroha is set aside.
15. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
16. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 21.08.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.
17. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case.
18. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
19. Instructions filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'.
Order Date :- 8.8.2025
A. Prajapati
