Summoning Order in Spurious Drugs Case Challenged: Allahabad High Court Allows Applicant to pursue all legal remedies
Nazmul Hasan vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 AHC 120097
July 23rd, 2025
In this case, the applicant has filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik BNSS 2023 seeking to quash the summon order dated 11.07.2019 issued by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Saharanpur, in case No. 18 of 2019 (State v. Nazmul Hasan) filed Under Section 18(c)/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,
The applicant was accused based on a complaint lodged by the Drug Inspector (opposite party no. 2), who alleged that during a raid conducted at the applicant’s medical store in Muzaffar Nagar, spurious drugs were found and seized. Following the examination of the drug samples, a complaint was filed under various penal provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, including Sections 18(a)(i)/27, 18(c)/27, 18(a)(vi)/27, 17-B/27, and 18(a)/28. The applicant was thereafter summoned under Section 18(c)/27 of the Act.
The Applicant argued that the summoning order is legally unsustainable as it does not state proper reasons and does not reflect judicial satisfaction.
Further, it was contended that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that it is unreasoned and non-speaking and he does not even recite the case of the complainant and less to say about recording of any satisfaction, about application of penal provisions and there was no independent witness also. Hence, the applicant was wrongly implicated.
On the other hand, the Opposite Party raised no objection to such contentions.
Decision
The Allahabad High Court observed that the applicant has obtained bail and the summoning order is of the year 2019, the application stands disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds which are advisable and permissible under law.
The case of J.M. Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127 was referred, wherein the Supreme Court held as under:
Para 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.”
The High Court took into consideration the submissions and noted the long pendency of the case since 2019, the Court disposed of the application while granting the applicant liberty to raise all permissible legal and factual contentions. the relevant para is quoted as under:
Para 5 “Considering the submissions so made across the bar and fact that the applicant has been obtained bail and the summoning order is of the year 2019, the application stands disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds which are advisable and permissible under law including the reliance placed upon the judgment in the case of M/s. JM Laboratories and Yashpal Chail and this Court has no option to disbelieve then the same shall be considered the contentions and the grounds so raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.”
The case was accordingly disposed of by the High Court.
You have different questions?
Our team will answer all your questions. we ensure a quick response.
(011)-46113619