Hearing a clutch of petitions linked to a decade-old drugs case, the Rajasthan High Court on Friday set aside the cognizance orders issued against senior figures of Cadila Pharmaceuticals and several distributors. The courtroom atmosphere was rather tense, as Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand repeatedly pointed toward lapses in the way trial courts had been issuing summoning orders. At one point, the judge remarked that Magistrates “cannot pass orders in a cyclostyle manner”, a comment that caused an audible stir among the lawyers present.
Background
The dispute goes back to 2012, when drug inspectors in Jhunjhunu and Bhilwara collected samples of certain medicines distributed by Cadila Pharmaceuticals and found them “sub-standard” after laboratory testing. Based on those findings, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Jhunjhunu, took cognizance in 2015 and summoned Cadila directors, manufacturing chemists, stockists and distributors under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(iv) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
The petitioners - including Cadila directors Rajiv Modi and Pankaj Patel, along with firms like Kaushal Pharma and Gadia Distributors - challenged the order. Their primary argument: the Magistrate issued the summons without explaining why a case was made out and without showing any “application of mind”. Some even argued they were not part of the company at the relevant time.
Court’s Observations
Justice Dhand spent a significant portion of the hearing explaining what “taking cognizance” really means. Switching between simple language and legal referencing, he noted that cognizance is not merely “reading a complaint”. The judge said, “The bench observed, ‘Cognizance requires the court to be satisfied that an offence has occurred and that there are grounds to proceed.’”
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
He cited several Supreme Court rulings, emphasising that a summoning order must show at least basic reasons. As he put it, “A person cannot be dragged to court simply because a complaint is filed.”
The judge also pulled up the Magistrate for issuing a non-speaking, cursory order, noting it lacked even a brief explanation of why a prima facie case existed. He called it “a totally non-speaking order”, pointing out that the CJM had neither analysed the complaint nor demonstrated any judicial satisfaction.
In a somewhat sharp remark, the Court noted that across Rajasthan, “cognizance orders are being passed in proformas and cyclostyle manner”, and suggested that judicial officers must be reminded - possibly through the Judicial Academy - to apply their mind before issuing summons.
Read also: Karnataka High Court Rejects RTI Activist's Plea Seeking Candidate's Exam Answer Script in KPSC
Decision
In the final order, Justice Dhand quashed the 2015 cognizance order against all petitioners and remitted the matter back to the Magistrate. The judge directed that a fresh, reasoned order be passed within four weeks, strictly after applying judicial mind and without giving the accused any right to be heard at this stage, since the law doesn’t require it for cognizance.
With that, the Court disposed of all connected petitions, making it clear that while evidence need not be evaluated deeply at this stage, the Magistrate must still show why proceedings should continue. The order ends with a subtle administrative nudge: a suggestion that the Chief Justice consider circulating this reminder to Magistrates statewide.
Case Title: M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Numbers:
- S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6524/2025
- Connected Cases: 2667/2022, 2668/2022, 5132/2022, 5136/2022, 5137/2022, 7747/2024, 7748/2024
Cadila Pharmaceuticals
Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions (seeking quashing of cognizance order)
Decision Date: 28 November 2025
