1 APHC010283552023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3975/2023 Between: 1. M/S.MSB MEDICAL AND SURGICAL AGENCIES, D.NO.44-49-A2 , ROJA STREET, KURNOOL REPRESENTED BY SRI SYED MAHABOOB PEERA PROPR CUM COMPETENT PERSON 2. SRI SYED MAHABOOB PEERA, S/O (LATE) SRI SYED SAHEB PEERA AGED 34 YRS, PROPR MSB MEDICAL AND SURGICAL AGENCIES, D.NO.44-49-A2 ROJA STREET, KURNOOL. 3. M/S MNS MEDICAL AND SURGICAL ENTERPRISES, D.NO.80-11- 129-87-3, ABBAS NAGAR, KURNOOL REP., BY ITS SRI SHAIK ABDUL WAJEED 4. SRI SHAIK ABDUL WAJEED, S/O SHAIK ABDUL MAJEED , AGED 35 YRS, MNS MEDICAL AND SURGICAL ENTERPRISES, D.NO.80-11- 129-B7-3 , ABBAS NAGAR, KURNOOL. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE DRUG INSPECTOR KURNOOL , KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. KUM M RUTHU, DRUGS INSPECTOR KURNOOL(URBAN) KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 2 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) 3 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. 2. 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 4 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. 3. Heard. Perused the record. 4. 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’. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision reported in Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.1757 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8882 of 2015) dated 11.10.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: 5 “26. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court would itself reveal that the learned CJM has not even cared to pass a formal order of issuance of process. It will be relevant to refer to the following part of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court: “….Though, it is true that on the certified copy produced by the petitioners there is no such formal order but copy of Roznama (daily notings of the proceeding) shows that such order was made on 30.3.2009. The Roznama dated 30.3.2009 reads as follows: (i) Complaint filed by Vilas Vishwanath Dusane. (ii) Copy of list of documents containing 44 document. Order was made on Exhibit 1 (of issue process). Take entry in register of criminal cases and issue summons against accused. List the matter for appearance of accused on 18.6.2009. This record is sufficient to infer that the order of issue process was made and after that summons were issued against accused to ask them to appear in the Court.” 27. It could thus clearly be seen that the learned Single Judge of the High Court held that though there was no formal order of issuance of process, the record was sufficient to infer that the order of issue process was made. 28. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609), which reads thus: “51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, 6 examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. 52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.” 53. However, the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.” 29. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Ashoke Mal Bafna (supra). 30. In the present case, leaving aside there being no reasons in support of the order of the issuance of process, as a matter of fact, it is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, that there was no such order passed at all. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, based on the record, has presumed that there was an order of issuance of process. We find that such an approach is unsustainable in law. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed.” 6. A perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, has to apply his mind in proceeding against the accused. He has to formulate as to whether the material on record disclose the offence or not and to that extent he has to pass an order. 7 7. A perusal of the Order passed by the learned Magistrate prima facie goes to show that except taking cognizance of the offences 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, there is no reason as to why the learned Magistrate has come to such a conclusion by taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners/accused. Cryptic orders of one, which the learned Magistrate has passed in the present complaint, are not tenable and the same are liable to be set-aside. Indeed, it is not necessary to the Magistrate to pass a detailed order, but at least, it should appear to the Court that the Magistrate has applied his judicial mind while passing the order, instead of passing two lines order as referred in the preceding paragraph and such kind of order is perfunctory and the same cannot be entertained. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned Order, dated 28.06.2016, passed in PRC No.9 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, is set-aside. However, the matter is remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, enabling to pass a detailed and reasoned 8 order in respect of taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners/ accused. 9. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Criminal Petitions, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 08.04.2026 M K K 9 250 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3975 of 2023 Date: 08.04.2026 M K K