An order of cognizance and issuance of process is invalid if it is cryptic and perfunctory; the Magistrate must demonstrate the application of judicial mind by stating reasons for believing a prima facie case exists.

Petition under Section 437 /438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to pass an Order to Quash the Impugned Proceedings in PRC No.9/2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kurnool as against the petitioners /Accused No.5,6,7 and 8 by Allowing a Criminal Petition in the interest of the justice and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to pass an Order to Stay of all the further proceedings in P.R.C.No.9/2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Kurnool against the petitioners/A-5,A-6, A-7 and A-including for appearance before the court pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition in the interest of the justice and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1.R SIVA SAI SWARUP

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.3975 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC No.9 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.

Brief facts of the case are that on 07/12/2015, upon receipt of credible information that spurious drugs were being manufactured by M/s Avya Health Care, II Industrial Area, Village Rudrapur, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Manufacturing Licence Nos.MNB/10/911 and MB/10/912 (a fictitious company) and circulated in the market, the Drugs Inspector, Kurnool (Urban), and Drugs Inspector, Adoni, under the supervision of the Assistant Director, Kurnool, along with Panchayatdars viz. N. Madhu Sudhana Reddy and M.V. Krishna Reddy, inspected M/s MSB Medical & Surgical Agencies, in the presence of Proprietor-cum-Competent Person. During inquiry, four varieties of drugs and five purchase invoices, showing supply from M/s Osheen Organics were produced. Samples were lifted in Form-17 dated 07/12/2015, divided into four portions each, sealed, and signed by the Proprietor and the Inspecting Officer, and one portion of each sample was handed over to the accused under acknowledgment as per Section 23(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Details of the drugs and invoices were recorded in Form-16 and seized under a Mediators’ Report dated 07/12/2015, sealed in a carton box with slips bearing signatures of all concerned. Copies of Form-17, Form-17A, Form-16, Mediators’ Report, and Inspection Report were furnished to the accused. On 08/12/2015, seizure was reported to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kurnool, under Section 23(5)(b) vide Rc.No.2/SZ/MR/ DI/KNL/2015 dated 07/12/2015, and to the Director General, Drugs & Copy Rights, Drugs Control Administration, Hyderabad, vide Rc.No.2/SZ/MR/ DI/KNL/2015 dated 08/12/2015; that the seized property was returned to the Inspecting Officer for safe custody. Hence, the Criminal Petition.

Heard. Perused the record.

A perusal of the impugned Order dated 18.04.2017, the learned Magistrate passed a very cryptic and stereotype order to the extent that ‘taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 27 (c) for contravention of Section 17B(c), Section 27(c) for contravention of Section 17B(d), Section 27(b)(ii) for contravention of Section 18(c), Section 22(3) for Contravention of Section 22(1)(cca), Section 28A for contravention of Section 18B , Section 28 for contravention of Section 18A , Section 27 (d) for contravention of Section 18(a) (i) r/w Sec.16(a) r/w second schedule and Section 27(d) for contravention of Section 18(a) (vi) r/w Sec.16(a) r/w second schedule of Second Schedule of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940’.

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision reported in Lalankumar Singh v