1. This petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer that Order dated 23rd September, 2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anantnag, in Criminal Complaint No. 01/M dated 23rd September, 2010, be quashed. 2. In terms of the aforementioned order, the learned Trial Judge has taken cognizance of the offences under Section 18 (a) (i) read with Section 27 (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short "Act of 1940") as amended upto 2009. After taking cognizance of the offences on the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector, process has been issued against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the report of the Government Analyst and to Section 27 (a) of the Act of 1940 and submitted that the offences, for which cognizance has been taken under Section 18 (a) (i), is not punishable in terms of Section 27 (a) of the Act of 1940. Learned counsel submitted that the Government Analyst has declared that the drug is not of standard quality. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 27 (a) would not be attracted in the facts of this case, as for attracting said provision the drug has to be adulterated or spurious. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for quashing of the order. 4. Mr. Magray, learned Sr. AAG, submitted that this petition is not maintainable as the arguments which are advanced at bar can be raised before the learned Trial Court, when the case will be considered for framing of charge/discharge. 5. When in a complaint, allegation contained therein, disclose the commission of offences, then the competent court of jurisdiction has to take cognizance of the offences. The Court after taking cognizance of the offences has power either to send the compliant for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. or if the person who is named accused in the complaint, in view of the material available on record, is not connected with the commission of offences, the Court may then dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. However, if the Court is, prima-facie, satisfied that the person named in the complaint is connected with the allegations contained therein, then he has to issue process for summoning of the named accused. The issuance of process against the person named in the complaint is of significant importance, in nature as summoning of a person in complaint and binding him down to face trial abridges his liberty which is, otherwise, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the stage of considering the case for issuance of process, or, otherwise the learned Trial Court has to keep in mind that the process cannot be issued without proper application of mind to the allegations contained in the complaint. While issuing process, the learned Trial Court has to briefly summarize the allegations contained in the complaint, in the order and has to record brief reasons for entering into satisfaction which would warrant for issuance of process against the accused. 6. Perusal of the order dated 23rd September, 2011, would show that the learned Trial Court has neither made a brief reference to the material available on record nor has recorded reasons in brief for entering into satisfaction that the allegations are of such in nature which would warrant for issuance of process against the accused. 7. For the above stated reasons, the Order dated 23rd September, 2011 is held to be unsustainable in law. This petition is accordingly disposed of in the following manner:- The Order dated 23rd of September, 2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anantnag in File No. 01/M in case titled "Drug Inspector v. M/S Nectar Life Sciences Ltd. and Ors" is set-aside. Learned Trial Judge is directed to reconsider the issue and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in this order. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall have no right to appear and argue the case at the stage when the Trial Court would reconsider the case for issuance or otherwise of process. Disposed of alongwith connected CMP(s).