Terming a summoning order issued against a drug manufacturing firm under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act cryptic, non-speaking and unreasoned, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the same.

The applicant had approached the High Court seeking the setting aside of the summoning order.

The Single Bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar held, “Apart from the same, the summoning order is cryptic, non speaking and unreasoned and it does not recite the case of the complainant and less to say about the attraction of the penal sections even on prima facie basis.

Senior Advocate Sarthak Singh represented the Applicant, while Additional Advocate General Pankaj Srivastava represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The applicant was a partnership firm engaged in drug manufacturing and possessing a statutory licence under the relevant provisions. An inspection was conducted, and a sample of the drugs in question was drawn. It was found that the sample did not conform to I.P. in respect of Assay (contains of Amoxycillin). On the receipt of the report of the Government Analyst, a letter was written to M/s Vimla Medical Store, Aligarh, requiring it to disclose the source from where the said samples were procured. In response thereof, the name of M/s Broad Medical Agencies, Aligarh, came to light.

The name of M/s Somkee India Private Limited was disclosed, and this Firm apprised the opposite party that it had purchased the drugs from the applicants. Post issuance of a notice, the applicants submitted their reply and thereafter, the impugned complaint came to be lodged under Section 18,27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, against the applicants pursuant to which the applicants came to be summoned under Section 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act by the court of Special Judge, Drugs and Cosmetics/Additional Session Judge.

Reasoning

Considering the fact that the applicants came to be summoned on November 15, 2024, i.e. post-enforcement of BNSS-2023, the Bench noted that the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of BNSS would come into play.

Reference was also made to the judgment in JM Laboratories and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2025), where the appeal of the accused was allowed after noting that the summoning order was totally a non-speaking one. “Since the summoning order does not test the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in JM Laboratories (supra), thus, it cannot be sustained”, it stated.

The Bench found the summoning order to be a non-speaking one.

Thus, the Bench set aside the order summoning the applicants under Section 18 and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. “...matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order”, the Bench directed.

Cause Title: M/S Associated Biotech v. State of U.P. ( Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:162172)

Appearance

Applicant: Senior Sarthak Singh, Advocates Abhinav Gaur, Ankit Tiwari

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Pankaj Srivastava

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Vikas Budhwar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.