Allahabad High Court
Salauddin And Another vs State Of U.P, And Another on 18 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140472
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26704 of 2025
Applicant :- Salauddin And Another
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 Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned AGA for the State.
2. This Court on 28.07.2025 had directed the learned AGA to obtain instructions/file affidavit. Learned AGA has produced before this Court the instructions under the signature of Drug Inspector, Amroha.
3. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application be decided at the fresh stage.
4. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 11946 of 2024, Special Case no.215 of 2025 (State Versus Salauddin and another) Under Section 18-A, 18(C)/27(b)(ii), 28 Drug and Cosmetics Act 1940, Police Station- Hashanpur, District- Amroha pending in the court of learned Additional session Judge-l, Amroha including the summoning order dated 29.11.2024.
5. The case of the applicants is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 29.11.2024 with an allegation that on 29.10.2024 the opposite party no. 2 on the instruction of the Incharge, Inspection, P.S. Hashanpur, District Amroha apprehended one box of suspected medicine in the possession of the applicants and on the aforesaid above information, the opposite party no. 2 reached the spot and inspected the box and found 16 box of Avil injection and in each box 25 Avil injection was present and thereafter, the medicine was sealed in presence of the applicants and recovery memo was prepared and the samples were sent for Government laboratory. A laboratory was also obtained and thereafter, on 29.11.2024 the complaint purported to be under Section 18(c), 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 came to be lodged pursuant whereto the applicants came to be summoned on 29.11.2024 by the CJM, Amroha, under Sections 18A/27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act.
6. Questioning the summoning order, the present application has been preferred.
7. This Court on 28.07.2025 proceeded to pass the following order.-
"1. Connect with Application u/s 528 of BNSS No.26678 of 2025.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the summoning order is cryptic and non-speaking as it does not even recite the case of the complainant and the same has been passed by total non-application of mind. He seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s J.M. Laboratories v. State of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 INSC 127.
3. Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. seeks time to obtain instructions/file affidavit.
4. Put up this case on 18.08.2025 as fresh along with the connected matter."
8. Since a statement has been made by the learned AGA that he has full instructions in the matter and he does not propose to file any affidavit, thus, quash the proceeding in the matter.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that though there are various grounds on which the complaint as well as the summoning order is to be attacked but the crucial question which goes to the root of the matter is the fact that the summoning order itself is cryptic non speaking and it does not even recite the case of the complainant and the same has been passed on mere asking. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in M/s JM Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the summoning order be set aside.
10. Learned AGA on the other hand, submits that, prima facie, offences are made out from the bare look of the complaint and the case is triable in nature but he could not dispute the fact that the summoning order is not at per the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in J.M. Laboratories (supra). He, thus, submits that the summoning order be set aside, matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.
11. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record.
12. The summoning order dated 29.11.2024 passed by CJM, Amroha in Case No. 11946 of 2024 reads as under.-
"?? ?? ??????-???? ?????????? ???????? ? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? 18 (c), 18A ??????? ???????? ???? 27 (b) (ii) ? ???? 28 ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ???
????? ????????? ?? ?????? ????, ????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ???? 223 ???????????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? 18A, 18(c)/27(b) (ii), 28 ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ???? 225 ???????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ???
??? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? 18A, 18(c)/27(b)(ii), 28 ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? 01.01.2025 ?? ??? ???? ????"
13. In J.M. Laboratories (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under.-
"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."
14. Bearing in mind the fact that the summoning order is cryptic, non speaking and unreasoned and it does not even recite the case of the complainant and it is not as per the mandate in J.M. Laboratories (supra), thus, the present application deserves to be allowed.
15. Accordingly, the application is decided in the following manner.-
(a) the summoning order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 11946 of 2024 by CJM, Amroha is set aside; (b) matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order; (c) for facilitation and early disposal, the certified copy of the order passed today shall be furnished to the court below by 05.09.2025.
16. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
17. Instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'.
Order Date :- 18.8.2025
Rajesh
