Section 204 CrPC - Magistrate's Order Of Issuance Of Process Liable To Be Set Aside If No Reasons Are Given: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an order of issuance of process is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused.

The court made this observation while setting aside a summoning order of a magistrate in a complaint filed under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.

"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 bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed. The court clarified that such an order need not contain detailed reason.

In this case, the accused are the Directors of M/s Cachet Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. ( "CPPL"). CPPL was granted permission to manufacture 'Hemfer Syrup' which falls under Schedule C & C(1) to the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945. A complaint was filed against them before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed under Section 18(a)(i) read with Sections 16 and 34 of the said Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. CJM, Beed issued Summons to all the accused, including the above accused. Therefore these accused filed a Criminal Revision Petition against the summoning order before the Sessions Judge, Beed on the ground that there are no specific averments in terms of Section 34 of the said Act as to the role played by the Directors. This petition was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. A Criminal Writ Petition filed before the Bombay High Court also got dismissed and thus they approached the Apex Court.

In appeal, the bench noted that that there are no specific averments insofar as the present appellants are concerned and they are neither the managing director nor the whole­time directors of the accused company. The bench also referred to judgments which have held that merely reproducing the words of the section without a clear statement of fact as to how and in what manner a director of the company was responsible for the conduct of 20 the business of the company, would not ipso facto make the director vicariously liable.

The court then noticed that CJM has not even cared to pass a formal order of issuance of process. On this issue, the High Court had 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. The bench while allowing the appeal, observed thus:

"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..

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."

Case details

Lalankumar Singh vs State of Maharashtra | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 833 | CrA 1757 OF 2022 | 11 October 2022 | Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar

Counsel: Sr. Adv C.U. Singh and Sr. Adv Anupam Lal Das, for appellants and Adv Siddharath Dharmadhikari for ­State of Maharashtra. 

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 204 - 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 reason. (Para 28 -30)

Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Section 34 - Merely reproducing the words of the section without a clear statement of fact as to how and in what manner a director of the company was responsible for the conduct of 20 the business of the company, would not ipso facto make the director vicariously liable. (Para 18)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment