Rajasthan High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Cognizance Orders in Cadila Pharmaceuticals Case

Court Orders Fresh Consideration with Emphasis on Judicial Mind Application

In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court's Jaipur Bench, presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, has quashed the cognizance orders against M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and its directors, citing lack of judicial application of mind. The case involved allegations of manufacturing sub-standard drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court observed that the Magistrate's order, which initiated proceedings against the company's directors and stockists, was a non-speaking and cursory order devoid of sufficient reasoning.

The petitions, consolidated for a common order, challenged the Magistrate's decision to take cognizance under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(iv), and 27(d), read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The High Court found that the Magistrate failed to demonstrate a prima facie case against the accused, as the order lacked detailed reasoning and application of judicial mind.

Justice Dhand emphasized the importance of issuing reasoned and speaking orders, stating that the act of taking cognizance is not a mere formality but requires careful judicial scrutiny. The court remitted the matter back to the Magistrate, directing the issuance of a fresh, reasoned order within four weeks, ensuring that all necessary ingredients for the alleged offenses are considered.

The judgment also highlighted the need for improved training of judicial officers, noting a trend of cursory cognizance orders. The court suggested administrative measures to ensure judicial officers apply their minds diligently when taking cognizance and issuing processes against accused persons.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's responsibility to uphold due process and ensure that legal proceedings commence only after thorough and reasoned consideration.

Bottom Line:

The Magistrate must pass a reasoned and speaking order after due application of judicial mind when taking cognizance, and not in a cursory or proforma manner. Cognizance orders should reflect sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and ensure the presence of the ingredients of the alleged offence.

Statutory provision(s): Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(iv), 27(d) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Sections 190, 202, and 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2814484