Rajasthan High Court Quashes 'Non-Speaking' Cognizance Order Against Cadila Pharma, Remands Matter for Fresh Consideration

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed a 2015 cognizance order against M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., its directors, and distributors in a case concerning sub-standard drugs. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that a judicial order taking cognizance of an offence cannot be a "cursory" or mechanical formality but must be a "reasoned and speaking order" reflecting a due application of judicial mind.

The court remitted the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, with a directive to pass a fresh, reasoned order within four weeks.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by a Drug Inspector after a drug sample manufactured by Cadila Pharmaceuticals was found to be of "sub-standard quality" in 2012. Consequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, took cognizance in 2015 against the company, its directors (including Rajiv Modi and Pankaj Patel), and various distributors and stockists under Sections 18 and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 .

The petitioners, including the company and its officials, approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that the cognizance order was passed without proper consideration of facts and law.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Contentions:

* Directors: Counsel for the directors argued that the complaint lacked specific allegations detailing their role or responsibility for the company's conduct, a prerequisite under Section 34 of the Act. It was further contended that one of the directors, Pankaj Patel, had resigned from his post in 1995 and was not involved in the company's affairs at the time of the alleged offence in 2012.

* Distributors and Stockists: Their counsel argued that as intermediaries, they were protected from prosecution under Section 19(3) of the Act, which shields sellers who can prove they acquired the drug from a licensed manufacturer or dealer.

* Overarching Argument: All petitioners collectively argued that the Magistrate passed the cognizance order in a "cursory manner without due application of mind."

State's Counter-Arguments: The Public Prosecutor defended the Magistrate's order, stating that the company itself had provided information identifying the directors as responsible for its day-to-day affairs. It was argued that at the cognizance stage, the court only needs to establish a prima facie case, and the specific defences of the accused are a matter for trial.

The High Court's Reasoning: Cognizance is Not an "Empty Formality"

Justice Dhand dedicated a significant portion of the judgment to explaining the legal import of "cognizance," defining it as a conscious application of judicial mind, not a mere administrative act. The court emphasized that while a detailed examination of evidence is not required at this stage, the order must reflect that the Magistrate is satisfied that an offence has occurred and that proceedings should be initiated.

Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in ** Lalankumar Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra (2022)**, the High Court reiterated a crucial legal principle:

> "The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether 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."

Applying this principle, the court found the Magistrate's 2015 order deficient. It observed:

> "In the instant case also while passing the impugned cognizance order, the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason as to how a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners... A totally non-speaking order has been passed in a very cursory manner by the Trial Court. Hence, the same is not tenable in the eyes of law..."

Final Decision and a Stern Message to the Magistracy

The High Court quashed the cognizance order and remanded the case for a fresh, reasoned decision. It clarified that the Magistrate is free to proceed against the accused if a prima facie case is made out, without hearing the accused, as they have no locus standi at this stage.

In a concluding note, the court took "serious note of the prevailing situation" where cognizance orders are often passed in a "causal and cursory manner," sometimes using pre-filled "proformas" or in a "cyclo-style manner." Justice Dhand directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice to consider circulating the order to all judicial officers in the state and for the Rajasthan State Judicial Academy to incorporate this issue into its training curriculum.