Unreasoned process order under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was set aside after a prior remand against co-accused directors.

Process issued against the petitioner company under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was challenged as unreasoned and lacking application of mind. The Bombay High Court noted that an earlier order in proceedings against the co-accused directors had already set aside the same process order and remanded the matter to the Sessions Court for action in accordance with law. On that basis, the Court held that the process order could not be sustained against the petitioner company and set it aside, with the matter remitted to the trial court for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order issuing process against the petitioner under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court.

Analysis: The impugned order was challenged as unreasoned and as not reflecting application of mind. The Court noted that an earlier order concerning the co-accused, who were directors of the petitioner company, had already set aside the same process order and remitted the matter to the Sessions Court for appropriate action in accordance with law. In view of that earlier determination, the same order could not be sustained against the petitioner company.

Conclusion: The order issuing process against the petitioner was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for further action in accordance with law.

---