Allahabad High Court
Evertouch Life Care vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:161626
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13548 of 2025 (Leading)
Evertouch Life Care
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Devesh Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
With
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13637 of 2025 (Connected)
Evertouch Life Care
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Devesh Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant in leading and connected applications as well as Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.
2. A statement has been made by the learned AGA as well as learned State Law Officer that they are possessed with the instructions and they would not propose to file any affidavit and the applications be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the applications are being decided at the fresh stage.
3. The case of the applicant in leading application is that the applicant happens to be a partnership firm which had been issued licence by the Licensing Authority. A complaint bearing no. 22110 of 2023 came to be filed by the opposite party no. 2 on 19.07.2023 on the basis of the report of Food Analyst, U.P., Lucknow dated 08.08.2022 received on 12.09.2022. The allegation is that on 22.07.2022 that at 4:30 P.M., the opposite party no. 2 inspected the premises and on the suspicion of adulteration samples were drawn of the subject article and it was sent for analysis report. Since the analyst report was showed violations so the complaint came to be filed and the applicant was summoned in Complaint Case No. 22110 of 2023 under Section 26/52(1) and 59(i) of FSSA 2006 while summoning the applicant to be present on 11.08.2023.
4. As regards the connected application is concerned, a complaint came to be lodged on 24.01.2023 under Section 26/52, 59(i) of the FSSA, 2006 with an allegation that samples were drawn during the course of inspection on 22.07.2022 and the same did not need the specification and post lodging of the complaint, the applicant came to be summoned on 09.08.2023 in Complaint Case No. 1246 of 2023.
5. Questioning the summoning orders passed in leading and the connected applications, the present applications have been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to argue that the summoning orders cannot be sustained for the simple reason that none of the offences sought to be alleged or made out and further according to him, the moot question which falls for consideration which is fundamental is the fact that in the leading case, there is no date of the summoning order and the same is cryptic non speaking as whereas in the connected application though the summoning order is dated 09.08.2023 but the same also is non speaking and cryptic. He seeks to rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. JM Laboratories and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another: 2025 INSC 127.
7. According to him, the summoning order cannot be sustained and they are liable to be set aside. Though according to him, there are several other grounds but he is confining his challenge to the summoning order being non speaking and unreasoned.
8. Learned AGA as well as State Law Officer who appears for the State in leading and connected applications have sought to argue on the basis of the instructions so forwarded to the court that the complaint depicts prima facie offences being made out, however, they could not dispute the fact that the summoning orders are cryptic non speaking. According to him, they are not as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in JM Laboratories (supra) and summoning order be set aside, matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.
9. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
10. Accordingly, post lodging of the complaint, the applicant came to be summoned. In the leading application, the summoning order is undated though summons the applicant to be present on 11.08.2023 in Complaint Case No. 22110 of 2023 which reads as under.-
"?? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ???
???????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? 200 ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?????????? ??? ??? ? ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? 26/52(1)59(1) ??? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?????????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? 11. 08.2023 ?? ???? ???"
11. In the connected application, the summoning order dated 09.08.2023 reads as under.-
"Called out. File is fixed for summoning order.
Complainant Surendra Kumar Gond, FSO has presented the complaint alongwith permission letter of Commissioner FSDA, Lucknow, report of food analyst etc. Complaint is made in writing and Food Safety Officer is Complainant/Public Servant and acted in discharge of official duties. Therefore, considering the proviso of Section 200 Cr.P.C. He is exempted from examination. After perusal of all relevant documents, their exist sufficient ground to proceed further and to take cognizance of offence u/s 26/52, 59(i), FSS Act, 2006 against accused Sunny Khan & others, winston pharmaceuticals Ltd, Ever touch life care and winston Pramaceuticals Noida. Let the accused be summoned for 08.09.2023."
12. A close reading of the summoning orders in the leading and the connected applications would reveal that the same are non speaking unreasoned and cryptic and they do not recite the case of the complainant. As a matter of fact, orders summoning the accused is a serious business and they cannot be taken lightly as though there is no requirement under law to go into the merits of the matter but there should be reflection of mind on prima facie basis so as to suggest that the penal sections are prima facie attracted. In JM Laboratories (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court opined 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." 13. Since the summoning orders are cryptic non speaking and they are as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in JM Laboratories (supra), thus, they cannot be sustained.
14. Accordingly, the applications are being decided in the following terms.-
(a) the summoning order passed in leading application in Complaint Case No. 22110 of 2023 and connected application dated 09.08.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 1246 2023 are set aside; (b) matter stands 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 26.09.2025.
15. With the above observations, the applications stand disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 11, 2025
Rajesh
