Cognizance is Not a Mechanical Ritual: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Against Cadila Directors in Substandard Drugs Case

“Summoning an Accused Is Not an Empty Form—It Requires Judicial Mind, Not Cyclostyled Orders,” In a critical intervention addressing both prosecutorial standards and judicial accountability, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the cognizance orders passed against the directors and distributors of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for alleged sale of substandard drugs, finding that the Magistrate had failed to record even a bare satisfaction before issuing process.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, delivering a detailed judgment in a batch of connected criminal miscellaneous petitions, held that the order taking cognizance under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(iv), 27(d) read with Section 16(1)(a), and Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was passed in “a totally non-speaking, cyclostyled manner,” without application of judicial mind, violating both procedural safeguards and settled law.

“A Judicial Officer Must Not Be a Postman Between the Complaint and the Process”: High Court Reminds Magistrates of Their Duty

The petitioners included the company M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., its directors Rajiv Modi and Pankaj Patel, and a group of distributors and stockists such as Kaushal Pharma and Gadia Distributors. They approached the High Court challenging the cognizance orders issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, in connection with Criminal Complaint No. 285/2015.

The principal ground of challenge was the absence of specific allegations, particularly against directors Rajiv Modi and Pankaj Patel. The Court was told that Pankaj Patel had resigned from the company as early as 1995, yet he was summoned in the complaint without any averments showing involvement in the alleged offence.

Justice Dhand observed: “In absence of a specific averment under Section 34 attributing control or responsibility to the directors, mere mention of their name is insufficient to summon them as accused.”

“No Enquiry Was Conducted Despite Accused Residing Outside Jurisdiction”: Court Finds Violation of Section 202 CrPC

The Court noted that the accused were all residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate, and yet, no enquiry under Section 202 CrPC was conducted before issuing summons. Emphasising the mandatory nature of this procedural safeguard, the Court held:

"Issuance of summons without conducting an enquiry under Section 202 CrPC where the accused resides beyond jurisdiction is a serious procedural irregularity rendering the order unsustainable in law."

This aspect alone, the Court observed, would suffice to invalidate the cognizance order.

“Distributors and Stockists Cannot Be Prosecuted as Manufacturers”: High Court Applies Section 19(3) of the Drugs Act

The Court also accepted the plea raised on behalf of the distributors and stockists, observing that they were not involved in the manufacturing process and hence could not be held liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act without specific proof to the contrary.

Referring to Section 19(3) of the Act, the Court reiterated: “Distributors and stockists cannot be fastened with criminal liability unless there is evidence that they were complicit in the manufacturing or had knowledge of the substandard quality.”

Accordingly, it found the complaint against these parties legally untenable.

“Cognizance Is an Act of Conscious Judicial Satisfaction—Not an Administrative Rubber Stamp”: Court Calls for Structural Reforms

In a broader observation on the judicial process, the Court delved into the concept of 'cognizance', calling it “an act of judicial awareness, not an automatic transmission from complaint to courtroom.”

Justice Dhand explained: "The act of taking cognizance must demonstrate a prima facie judicial satisfaction that the alleged offence has occurred. It is not a mere clerical step. Even if detailed reasoning is not mandated, there must be a reflection that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and materials before issuing process."

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine 1383, the Court emphasised that absence of reasons in a cognizance order could render it legally void.

"The words 'sufficient ground for proceeding' under Section 204 CrPC cannot be an empty phrase. They imply the formation of judicial opinion, however briefly stated," the Court said.

“Cyclostyled Orders Have No Place in Criminal Jurisprudence”: Court Recommends Judicial Training and Administrative Oversight

Before parting, the High Court issued strong remarks against what it termed the “growing practice of cyclostyled and proforma-based cognizance orders.” The judgment stated:

"The issuance of process is not a perfunctory exercise. It initiates the criminal process and may result in the deprivation of liberty. Therefore, the Magistrate must discharge this duty with caution, applying his judicial faculties, not templates."

In a significant direction aimed at systemic correction, the Court called upon the Hon’ble Chief Justice on the administrative side to:

• Circulate a copy of this judgment to all Judicial Officers across the State of Rajasthan;

• Consider instructing the Rajasthan State Judicial Academy to incorporate this judgment into the training curriculum for Magistrates.

Cognizance Order Set Aside—Fresh Order to Be Passed Within Four Weeks

Ultimately, the High Court quashed the impugned cognizance orders, directing the Magistrate to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order within four weeks, after properly considering whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are satisfied.

Justice Dhand clarified: “At the stage of taking cognizance, detailed evidence is not required. But application of mind is essential. The Magistrate must form a judicial opinion, even if briefly recorded.”

The Court left it open for the Magistrate to proceed against the petitioners afresh in accordance with law, but only after complying with the required legal standards.

“Justice Must Not Begin with Judicial Automation”: A Reminder to the Lower Judiciary

This ruling has emerged as a guiding precedent for subordinate courts dealing with quasi-regulatory offences. It firmly reiterates that mere statutory offence and accusation do not justify automatic prosecution unless supported by reasoned application of mind.

As the judgment aptly concludes:
"The criminal process must not be reduced to a bureaucratic ritual. Its initiation must be grounded in judicial conscience—not mechanical compliance."

Date of Decision: 28 November 2025