IMPORTANT POINT
Summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter – Order of Magistrate summoning accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to facts of the case and law applicable thereto – Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning accused.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 12th January 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati, whereby the High Court dismissed the Criminal Petition No. 4148 of 2018 filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ [“Cr.P.C.” hereinafter] thereby praying for calling of the records pertaining to C.C. No. 71 of 2018 on the file of First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa² [“Trial Court” hereinafter] and to quash the same against the appellants herein, who are arraigned as Accused Nos. 5 and 6.

3. Shorn of details, the facts leading up to the present appeal are:

3.1. The first appellant herein - INOX Air Products Limited (Now known as M/s. INOX Air Products Private Limited) is a company incorporated in India having its registered office in Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of industrial and medical gases in India. The second appellant-Pavan Kumar Jain, is the Managing Director of the first appellant company.

3.2. A complaint came to filed on 22nd December 2017 by the Drugs Inspector, Kadapa before the Trial Court wherein the appellants were made Accused Nos. 5 and 6. It was alleged in the complaint that based on information received by the complainant, on 3rd May 2016, the complainant along with 2 panch witnesses went to the RIMS General Hospital, Kadapa at around 02:00 P.M. and met the Superintendent of the Hospital. He was asked for the purchase bills and the person from whom they had procured Oxygen I.P. and Nitrous Oxide I.P. The Superintendent informed that they had purchased drugs from M/s. Varasi Oxygen firm (Accused No. 1). On verification of the purchase bills, it was discovered that the Accused No. 1 firm had the licenses for Oxygen I.P. only and not for Nitrous Oxide I.P. The complainant asked for the purchase agreement between the Hospital and the Accused No. 1 firm, and it was revealed that the agreement had existed since 2009. The complainant then seized the 72 purchase bills of the Nitrous Oxide I.P. from the Superintendent and on verification it was found that there was no physical stock of Nitrous Oxide I.P. gas cylinders in the RIMS General Hospital.

3.3. The complainant addressed a letter to the Superintendent on 5th January for the name and address of the Accused No. 1 firm and to produce the agreement between them. This was duly submitted. Another letter was issued thereafter to Accused No. 1 firm on 6th January 2017 to produce the drug licenses for the purchase and sale of the Nitrous Oxide I.P. and to produce the purchase bills, sale bills, sale drugs and constitution particulars. Accused No. 1 replied through its representative G. Raghunadha Reddy (Accused No. 2) that the Nitrous Oxide I.P. was purchased from another firm - M/s. R.S. Gas Products (Accused No. 3) and the purchase bills for the same were submitted.

3.4. The complainant issued a letter seeking similar submission of licenses and purchase bills relating to Nitrous Oxide I.P. to Accused No. 3 firm. Accused No. 3 firm submitted in its reply that they had purchased the Nitrous Oxide I.P. from M/s INOX Air Products (Accused No. 5), i.e. Appellant No. 1 herein. However, no license for the purchase of Nitrous Oxide I.P. was submitted by Accused No. 3 firm.

3.5. A similar letter was issued by the complainant to Appellant No. 1 firm on 19th May 2017 to produce and submit the drug license to manufacture the drug Nitrous Oxide I.P. and to produce the sale bills. A reply was received on 7th June 2017 from Appellant No. 2 herein representing Appellant No. 1. The drug licenses for manufacturing and selling the drug Nitrous Oxide I.P were submitted.

3.6. It was thus concluded by the Drug Inspector while submitting the complaint that Appellant No. 1 firm (Accused No. 5) represented by Appellant No. 2 (Accused No. 6) sold the drug Nitrous Oxide I.P. to the unlicensed Accused No.