Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87018 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5291 of 2025 Applicant :- Surendra Rohra Alias Babu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Tiwari,Gyanendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Shri Diwakar Tiwari along with Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA for the State. 2. This Court while entertaining the application had directed the learned AGA to obtain instructions on 02.05.2022, 13.05.2023 and 17.05.2025, however, learned AGA has submitted that though he is possessed with the instructions under the signatures of the opposite party no. 2 dated 21.05.2025, he submits that the same would be self-sufficient for disposal of the application and with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage. 3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of the impugned summoning order dated 03.07.2024 passed by learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Banda in Case No. 82 of 2024 (State Versus Surendra Rohra @ Babu), Under Section 26(2) (I), 26(2)(III), read with section and 59(III), 63 of The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Banda, Pending in the Court of learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Banda. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 09.05.2024 under Section 26(2)(I), 26(2)(III) read with Section 59(III), 63 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which an allegation that in the premises of the applicant an inspection was conducted on 23.06.2023 at 6.00 PM wherein the product being Kesar-Supadi was found not as per the specifications and standards under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Thereafter the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-Ist, Banda in Special Case No. 82 of 2024 (State v. Surrendra Rohra @ Babu) proceeded to summon the applicant under Section 26(2)(I), 26(2)(III) read with Section 59(III), 63 Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 5. Questioning the summoning order, the applicant has been filed the present application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has made various submissions, however, he confined his argument while submitting that the summoning order is stereotype passed by non-application of mind without even reciting the case of the complainant. He seeks to rely upon the judgment in the case of M/S. JM Laboratories vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127. He further submits that the summoning order dated 03.07.2024 be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders. 7. Shri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA submits that though the product in question was not as per the standards as required under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, however, according to him, the summoning order dated 03.07.2024 appears to have been passed on incorrect perspective. According to him, he submits that the summoning order dated 03.07.2024 be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 9. Before delving into the tenability of the arguments of the rival parties, it would be apposite to extract the summoning order dated 03.07.2024 in extensio: "शश, ननगगश कक मनर खनद सकरकन अधधकनरश, जनपद बनबदन दनरन अभभयकक सकरगनद ररहडन उरर बनबब पकत अमरलनल भनवनसश धसबधश गकरदनरन सटगशन ररड बनबदन थननन करतवनलश नगर धजलन बनबदन ससथत पभतषनन मग भदननबक-23.06.2023 कर समय भदन कग लगभग 6.00 पश०एम० पर अपनग पदशय दनभयतवव कन भनवरहन करतग हहयग जनबच पडतनल कक गयश। जनबच कग आधनर पर पररवनदश नग वतरमनन पररवनदपत पसतकत भकयन गयन हह। पररवनदपत मम वभररत तथयव एवब अनरतवसतकओब कग आधनर पर पथमदषयन खनद कनररबनरश सकरगनद ररहडन उरर बनबब कग भवरद धनरन-26 (2) (1), 26 (2) (III), सपभठत धनरन-59 (11), 63 खनद सकरकन एवब मननक अधधभनयम 2006 कन अपरनध गभठत हरनन दभशरत हर रहन हह। पररवनद दनधखल करनग कग पबवर भनयमननकसनर आवशयक कनयरवनहश करतग हहयग आयकक खनद सकरकन एवब औषधध पशनसन भवभनग, लखनऊ कग पतनबक- एर० एस० डश० एस० वनदसवशकक भत पत 17978/2024/2240 भदननबभकत-12.04.2024 सग अभभयरजन सवशकक भत सकम अधधकनरश सग पनप कर पररवनद दनधखल भकयन गयन हह। भवदनन भवशगष शनसककय अधधवकन (रफजदनरश) एवब पररवनदश कर सकनन तथन सकसबगरत अभभयरजन पपतव कन अवलरकन भकयन। भवदन भवशगष शनसककय अधधवकन (रफजदनरश) एवब पररवनदश कर सकनन तथन सकसबयरत अभभयरजबन पपतव कन अवलरकन भकयन। * चभक पररवनद शश धजतगनद पटगल खनद सकरकन अधधकनरश जनपद बनबदन जर लरकसगवक कक शगरश मम आतग हह, कग दनरन अपनग पदशय दनभयतव कन भनवरहन करतग हहयग दनधखल भकयन गयन हह। इसधलयग तलबश सग पबवर पररवनद कग समबनध मम उनकग बयनन अनतगरत धनरन-200 दब०प०सब० व सनकय धनरन-202 दब०प०सब० कक कनयरवनहश भकयसन जननन आवशयक नहश हह। पतनवलश पर उपलबध सनकय सनमगश कग पररशशलन सग पथम दषयन भगवननदशन सनहह कग भवरद उक वभररत धनरनओब मम कनयरवनहश भकयग जननग कग आधनर पयनरप एवब नयनयरभचत पतशत हरतन हह। अतत अभभयकक सकरगनद ररहडन उरर बनबब जररयग समन उपररक धनरनओब धनरन-26(2) (1), 26(2) (II), सपभठत धनरन-59 (111), 63 खनद सकरकन एवब मननक अधधभनयम 2006 मग तलब हर। पतनवलश वनसतग हनधजरश मकसलजम भदननबक-02.08.2024 कर पगश हर।" 10. A perusal of the summoning order dated 03.07.2024 would reveal that the same even does not recite the case of the complainant, less to say about due application of mind as a matter of fact only this much has been recited that an inspection was conducted in the premises of the applicant by the Drug Administration which entailed filing of the complaint. 11. In the opinion of the Court, summoning is a serious issue and the same cannot be taken lightly as a routine as due application of mind is implicit which needs to be reflected in the order. Here, the Court finds that the said ingredient is virtually lacking. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JM Laboratories (supra), para 9 whereof is quoted hereinunder.- "9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non- speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood U Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others and Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, the present appeal deserves to be allowed." 13. Thus, this Court is proceeding to dispose of the present application in the following manner: (a) The summoning order dated 03.07.2024 passed by learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Banda in Case No. 82 of 2024 (State v. Surrendra Rohra @ Babu) is set aside. (b). The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law. (c). For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 30.05.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition. 14. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case. 15. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. 16. Instructions have been filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix-A. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad