A Magistrate must state reasons when taking cognizance of an offence; absence of judicial reasoning invalidates the order.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Samir Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned counsel representing the respondent Union of India.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE praying for quashing and setting aside the proceeding of C.R. Case No.5710/2022 and the order issuing processes dated 13.09.2022 and 30.06.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class No.4, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.

3. The Union of India represented by Drugs Inspector lodged a complaint against 11 persons alleging commission of offence under Section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

4. The said 11 persons were Shri Shah Hemang Jayendra of M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd.; Rameshbhai Himmatlal Desai of M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd.; Bharatbhai Rameshbhai Desai of M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd.; Rameshchandra Desai of M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd.; Smti. Indiraben Desai of M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd.; Smti. Lataben Parikh of M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd.; Smti. Kashmiraben Saileshchandra Desai of M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd.; Shri Mahesh Poonjalal Shah of M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd.; Mrs. Himaben Bharatbhai Desai of M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd.; Shri Bhupendra M. Patel of M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd. and Mr. Vishal G. Patel of M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd.

5. In the complaint petition, M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd. was not made a party. This company produced Folic Acid Tablets I.P. 5mg. at Vadodara, Gujarat. The complainant tested the samples of that tablet because the said tablets were Drugs according to Section 3 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. One portion of the said drug was sent to Regional Drug Testing Laboratory at Guwahati. The said Laboratory certified that the said drug was not of standard quality. Narrating the aforesaid facts, the complaint petition was filed.

6. Though, initially, M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd. was not made a party, on 13.09.2022, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class took cognizance of the offence under Section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against those 11 persons. The examination of the complainant under Section 200 was dispensed with as the complainant was a public servant and the complaint was filed in discharge of his public service. The court directed issue of summonses to the aforesaid 11 number of persons.

7. Subsequently, M/s. Bharat Parenterals Ltd. was added a party in the complaint petition and this time on 30.06.2023, the court passed the following order:

“30.06.2023.

The complainant has filed the amended complaint wherein the principal accused company namely, M/S. Bharat Parenterals Ltd. has also been included as one of the accused and cognizance is accordingly taken for offence u/s 27(b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Issue summons to all the 12 accused.

Complainant is to take necessary steps.

Fixing 09.10.2023 for appearance/report.”

8. Deliberating upon Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Mehta has submitted that the order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. Mr. Mehta further submitted that the Magistrate requires to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. According to Mr. Mehta, the formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The learned counsel Mr. Mehta continued his submission by stating that an order of the Magistrate 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. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Mehta has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Lalanku