1. Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel parties.

4. By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of these two Writ Petitions. In Criminal Writ Petition No.78 of 2023, the order challenged is dated 05.04.2021 passed by the JMFC, Margao in Criminal Case No.AOA / 601 / DCA / 2020 / II while in Criminal Writ Petition No. 313 of 2024 the order challenged is dated 21.09.2022 passed by the JMFC, Pernem in Criminal Case No.AOA / 21/2022. Both these orders issue process against the Petitioners, on a complaint filed by the State of Goa through the Drugs Inspector, Directorate of Foods and Drugs Administration, seeking prosecution of the Petitioners under S.32(2) and S.36 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

5. he two main contentions pressed in this petition are that the impugned order of issuance of process has been passed by the Magistrate without supplying any reasons for issuing process and, the order issuing process has been passed without conducting a mandatory inquiry under S.202 of the, CrPC, considering that the Petitioners reside or have their registered office at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises jurisdiction.

6. On a plain reading of the impugned order, the Magistrate has mechanically passed an order stating "cognizance taken, issue summons to the Accused"; the order is totally devoid of any reasoning or reference to the allegations made in the complaint. he order does not reflect the application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts stated in the complaint, before issuing process; even if the Petitioners were residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned, the order must contain reasons demonstrating application of mind to the facts stated in the complaint. Absence of such reasons would render the order contrary to S.200 of the Act and would have to be quashed and set aside.

7. In Kirti Kumar Jayantilal Patel and others v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2023 All. MR (Cri) 1623), the Supreme Court has held that the order of issuance of process which is devoid of reasons reflects non application of mind to the averments made in the complaint and is contrary to the provisions of S.200 of the Code. On this count itself the order is quashed and set aside.

8. here is a second reason why the impugned order cannot be sustained. S.202 of the Code requires that, where the accused resides at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises its jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing process. In the present case, admittedly the accused reside or have their registered office beyond the jurisdiction of the JMFC at Margao / Pernem. In both these cases, the JMFC has not followed the mandatory procedure laid down under S.202 before issuing process, thus vitiating its order. his Court, in Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited and Others v. he State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in MANU / MH / 0573/2021 has considered a similar case where process was issued contrary to the provisions of S.202. he relevant portions of the judgment are quoted below:
7 The legislative purpose and the binding nature of the provision is elaborately considered by the Supreme Court, inter alia in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another, 2017 All. SCR (Cri) 236 and it would be apposite to note the following articulation in the said decision:
"21. Basic facts which need to be recapitulated for deciding this issue are that A - 1 is the Managing Director of Sakal newspapers whereas A - 2 is the Chairman of the Company. Further, insofar as declaration under S.7 of the Press Act is concerned, name of the other accused persons are mentioned except these two accused persons. herefore, we have to examine the matter keeping in view non - existence o