The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court held that " The order of issuance of the process (u/s 204 CRPC) is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether the sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not.  The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused.  No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. 

The Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the Bombay High Court noted the facts that "The Appellants are the Directors of M/s Cachet Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. CPPL was granted permission to manufacture ‘Hemfer Syrup’ which falls under Schedule C & C(1) to the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945. On 30th August 2006 Drugs Inspector visited the premises of M/s. Priya Agencies at Beed and purchased ‘Hemfer Syrup’, from which he had drawn samples of the drug. On 31st August 2006, he sent one such sample to the Government Analyst. On 26th  February 2007, he received a test report dated 13th February 2007, that the sample was not of standard quality as the content of Cyanocobalamin was less than the permissible limit, i.e., 39% of the label amount. On the same day, the manufacturer of the drug, i.e., CPPL, was informed by a registered post about the test report. On 29th March 2007, Sh. Vijay Jain, Deputy Manager, QA   of   CPPL   requested the Drug Inspector to send the samples again for analysis.

Pursuant to an application filed by M/s Alkem Laboratories, the distributor of CPPL, the learned CJM, Beed sent the samples of ‘Hemfer Syrup’ for re­analysis on 24th  April 2007.   On 10th  July 2007, the Learned CJM, Beed received the test report from the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta stating therein that the sample was not of standard quality as it did not conform to the accepted limits of Cyanocobalamin content. Drug Inspector called upon CPPL to furnish the particulars.

Complaint bearing RCC No. 233 of 2009 came to be filed before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed under Section 18(a)(i) read with Sections 16 and 34 of the said Act and punishable under Section 27(d) of the said Act. In the said complaint, the present Appellants being Directors of the Company were arrayed as Accused Nos. 5 to 8. The learned CJM, Beed issued Summons to all the accused, including the Appellants herein vide Order dated 30th  March 2009. The Appellants filed a Criminal Revision Petition against the summoning order before the learned Sessions   Judge,   Beed on the ground that there are no specific averments. the Sessions Judge, Beed rejected the said Criminal Revision Petition noting that there is a specific averment in the complaint that the appellants are concerned with the manufacture, distribution and sale of ‘Hemfer Drug’. 

The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, dismissed the said Criminal Writ Petition on the ground that all the Directors were conducting the business of CPPL and thus, they were involved in the manufacturing process.

case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1757  OF 2022

LALANKUMAR SINGH & ORS. …APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA       …RESPONDENT(S)

Read the complete judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/33653/33653_2015_12_1501_38809_Judgement_11-Oct-2022.pdf