Cognizance of an offence requires specific allegations and judicial application of mind, failing which the order is quashed.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. Since common questions of fact and law arise in all these misc. petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, all the matters are taken up for final disposal and are accordingly being decided by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts mentioned in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7747/2024 are taken into consideration.

3. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 22.05.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in criminal complaint No. 285/2015 taking cognizance against all the petitioners under Section 18(a)(i), 18(a)(iv) and 27(d) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, ‘the Act of 1940’) and all the petitioners have been summoned.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Director i.e. Mr. Rajiv Modi submits that bare perusal of the entire complaint does not reveal any allegations against the petitioners. Counsel submits that as per Section 34 of the Act of 1940, the Drug Inspector is duty bond to incorporate the allegation levelled against the Director in the complaint that every person who is In-charge of the company was liable and responsible for the business/conduct of the company but in the instant case, no specific allegation has been alleged against the petitioners. He further submits that in the absence of such allegation, the petitioners cannot be arrayed as accused in the complaint. He further submits that while taking cognizance against the petitioners no satisfaction has been recorded by the Trial Court and straightaway, the order of cognizance has been passed in a cursory manner without due application of mind. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inox Air Products Limited Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2025 INSC 128, M/s. JM Laboratories and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., (Criminal Appeal No. 487/2025) decided on 30.01.2025, Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council and Anr. reported in 2012(1) SCC 520, Siby Thomas Vs. M/S/. Somany Ceramics Ltd. reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 869 and Susela Padmavethy Amma Vs. M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited, (SLP (Criminal) No. 12390/2022) decided on 15.03.2024.

Lastly, he argued that under Section 202 Cr.P.C. it is mandatory that before issuing summons to the accused, an enquiry should be held against the accused particularly in those cases where the accused is residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Court below taking cognizance against the petitioners is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the other Director i.e. Pankaj Patel, submits that the sample of the disputed drugs was taken by the Drug Inspector on 21.05.2012 and it was sent to the State Laboratory for analysis and the report of the same was received on 04.12.2012 which indicates that the drugs were found to be of substandard quality. Counsel submits that Mr. Pankaj Patel, was not the Director of Company because he had already resigned from his post way back in the year 1995 and was no longer involved in the day to day affairs of the said company. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be arrayed as an accused in the complaint and no cognizance ought to have been taken against him.

6. Counsel submits that so far as the petitioner company M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. is concerned, no specific allegation has been attributed to the said company, and the same is against the mandate contained under Section 34 of the Act of 1940. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings arising out of the impugned complaint and cognizance order are liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Mr. Dharmendra Gupta for Mr. G.D.Bansal app