Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. – Respondent
Key Points: - The court emphasizes that lack of specific allegations against directors in a cognizance order renders it untenable and requires judicial mind and reasons for taking cognizance (!) (!) . - An enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory before issuing summons, especially when the accused reside outside the jurisdiction; a non-speaking cognizance order breaches procedural fairness (!) (!) . - The order taking cognizance must be reasoned and speaking; a cursory, non-speaking order is liable to be quashed and remanded for a reasoned order, with emphasis on prima facie grounds to proceed (!) (!) . - Directors can be liable only if specific allegations exist; mere presence of a director in records without explicit allegations may render cognizance improper under Section 34 and related provisions (!) (!) . - The matter remitted to magistrate for a fresh reasoned order, clarifying that meticulous evaluation of evidence is not required at cognizance but application of mind is essential (!) . - The court cites that the process must reflect sufficient grounds to proceed and that the order’s reasons must be stated, citing Lalankumar Singh and related judgments (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment condemns cursory, proforma cognizance orders and suggests administrative measures to improve cognizance practice (!) (!) .
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-charg
Cognizance of an offence requires specific allegations and judicial application of mind, failing which the order is quashed.
Point of law : A summon is a process issued by a Court calling upon a person to appear before a Magistrate - It is used for purpose of notifying an individual of his legal obligation to appearbefore ....
It is settled that taking cognizance is a well-known but undefined concept in criminal jurisprudence. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not define word "cognizance". The dictionary meaning of the w....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for judicial officers to apply judicial mind and not use printed proforma in passing judicial orders.
A Magistrate must provide clear reasoning when taking cognizance of offences against fewer accused than those charged, reinforcing the need for judicial transparency.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
