Back
RAJEEV MISRA
Unique Medicare Products – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Misra, J.
Heard Mr. Gaurav Gupta, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 06.09.2021 passed by Special Judge, Drug and Cosmetic Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, District-Jhansi in Special Sessions Trial No. 359 of 2021 (State of U.P. through Drug Inspector v. M/s Unique Medicare and another) under Section 17 -B read with Section 18 (a) (i), 18 (c), 27(b), 27 (c) and 27 (d) of Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1940 in front of D-36 Site-C UP SID Industrial Area Road, Sikandra, District-Jhansi as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned Special Sessions Trial now pending in the Court of Special Judge, Drugs and Cosmetic Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, District-Jhansi
3. Perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for applicants in support of present application submits that impugned summoning order passed by court below is manifestly illegal and arbitrary. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for applicant submits that court below has not recorded any reason in the impugned summoning order. It is then contended by learned c
The Magistrate must provide a reasoned order reflecting application of mind when summoning accused, ensuring sufficient grounds exist for proceeding with the case.
Summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter – Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
Directors are liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for the conduct of the company's business, and summoning orders require only a prima facie case without extensive procedural scrutiny.
Point of law: A complaint case under Drugs and Cosmetic Act which is a special act and therefore was filed before the Special Judge. Under Section 244 and 245 of the Cr.P.C. cognizance can be taken a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of recording reasons and application of mind by the Magistrate when passing a summoning order, especially when the Magistrate's view ....
Non-compliance with statutory provisions and resignation of the accused from the company absolved him of liability, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
An order under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be valid unless the Magistrate provides clear reasoning to establish a prima facie case, ensuring ample judicial consideration.
The requirement of judicial mind in summoning orders and the need to consider a prima facie case at the stage of summoning.
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
