Section 20. Punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents
(1) Any person who produces or manufactures cigarettes or tobacco products, which do not contain, either on the package or on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar contents, shall in the case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both, and for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
(2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees.
How courts have applied section 20
- Section 20(2) prosecutions are often quashed alongside IPC and FSS Act offences unless compliance with Sections 5, 6, 7 and 10 of the COTP Act is shown to have failed.1
- Police were held to lack power to investigate or take up complaints under the FSS Act, and mere transport of tobacco products did not attract Sections 270 and 273 IPC.2,3
- Where proceedings are quashed, seized property is directed to be returned on proper identification and verification.2,4
- Pre-arrest bail was refused for large seizures (e.g. 1680 kgs of khaini) where custodial interrogation appeared necessary.5
- Anticipatory bail was granted despite large quantities when the petitioner's name did not figure in the FIR and there was no previous criminal case.6
- Bail under Section 20/BNSS routinely imposes conditions of daily reporting, sureties, and non-tampering, with breach consequences under Section 269 BNS.7,8,9
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here deal overwhelmingly with Section 20 as a charging provision in criminal proceedings, decided mostly at the pre-trial stage by the Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and Madras High Courts. Courts have frequently quashed proceedings that combined Section 20(2) with IPC and FSS Act offences, holding that allegations such as transportation, possession, or storage of banned tobacco products do not amount to offences under those other laws. In one consistent line, the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Courts quashed FIRs and complaints where the prosecution could not show non-compliance with Sections 5, 6, 7 and 10 of the COTP Act as a precondition for prosecuting under Section 20(2).2,10,11,12,4,1,3
On the substantive reach of the provision, Section 20(2) was applied to those selling or distributing products lacking the specified warning and nicotine/tar content, including distributors and persons in possession for the purpose of sale. The provision was read together with Sections 6(a), 6(b) and 7 of the same Act, and courts did not treat every dealing with tobacco as an automatic offence. Where proceedings were quashed, courts ordered return of seized property on proper identification and verification under due acknowledgment. The decisions did not, in the main, examine the quantum of punishment under subsections (1) or (2) in any detail.2,10,12,1,4,13
Bail decisions under Section 20 were granted or refused based on ordinary bail considerations: custodial interrogation, prior criminal record, quantity of the contraband, and period of incarceration already undergone. Refusal of pre-arrest bail was justified where the seizure was large (1680 kgs of banned khaini) and investigation was at a stage where custodial interrogation appeared necessary. Grant was ordered where the accused failed only to produce authorisation documents, where the petitioner was a first offender in judicial custody, or where the quantity was comparatively small.11,5,14,7,15,8,13,9
In several orders the courts noted the absence of previous cases against the accused and directed stringent conditions, including daily reporting, sureties, and non-tampering clauses, sometimes with breach consequences under Section 269 BNS. One judgement on pre-arrest bail held that an applicant should ordinarily approach the Sessions Court first before moving the High Court. On an ancillary point, a rowdy sheet opened after prior convictions under Section 20(2) was directed to be closed where the person did not fit the enumerated categories and had kept a clean record since the conviction.7,8,9,6,16,17
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 20
The High Court of Telangana allowed criminal petitions and quashed proceedings regarding transportation, possession, and storage of banned tobacco products. The court held that the allegations lacked ingredients under relevant laws, directing the return of seized property.
AllowedOpenTelangana High Court (J. Sreenivas Rao J., 02.02.2026) allows Crl.P. No. 1097 of 2026 under Section 528 BNSS and quashes FIR No.43 of 2026 dated 09.01.2026 (Uppal P.S., Rachakonda Commissionerate) against Accused Nos.
AllowedOpenPetition to quash proceedings against a pan shop seller charged with selling prohibited cigarettes; the State did not oppose, and following a prior coordinate-bench order quashing similar cases, the High Court quashed proceedings and directed return of seized property.
DisposedOpenRowdy sheet closure; suspect sheet; history sheet; Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.601; Standing Order 601/602(2) AP Police Standing Orders; Articles 14 and 21 Constitution of India; Ibrahimpatnam Police Station Vijayawada City NTR District; Crime No.511 of 2016; Crime No.247 of 2018; Section 270 IPC;
AllowedOpenTwo petitioners sought pre-arrest bail for alleged illegal transportation of khaini pouches without authorisation documents. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and directed that they be released on bail upon surrender within three weeks, with cooperation in investigation.
AllowedOpenAnticipatory bail refused — High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.), ABLAPL No. 5440 of 2026, Ajit Kumar Swain v. State of Odisha, order dated 20.05.2026. Petitioner is an accused in Khandapada P.S. Case No. 93 of 2026 / G.R. Case No.
DisposedOpen
Show 6 more
Anticipatory bail — Pre-arrest bail under S.482 BNSS (erstwhile S.438 Cr.P.C.) — Maintainability — Concurrent jurisdiction of High Court and Sessions Court — Exhaustion of remedy. Following its earlier decision in Mitu Das v. State of Odisha (ABLAPL No.5283 of 2021) and relying on Jagdeo Prasad v.
DisposedOpenThe Delhi High Court granted interim bail for two weeks to an applicant accused under the NDPS Act following his father's death. Despite prior NDPS involvement and pending co-accused investigation, the Court imposed strict conditions to address tampering risks.
Mandamus for issuance of passport despite accused status in criminal cases under investigation; Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirapalli; Crime Nos. 33/2025 and 134/2022; Sections 275, 123 BNS; COTPA Sections 20(2), 6(a), 6(b), 24(1); Section 77 JJ Act;
DisposedOpenPetitioners A1 and A3 were arrested for joint possession of banned tobacco products under Sections 123 and 318(4) BNS read with Section 20(1) COTPA. The court granted bail, citing their first-offender status and period in custody, subject to conditions including bonds, sureties and daily reporting.
AllowedOpenQuash of cheating/tobacco prosecution: Paruchuri China Kasi Viswanadam sought quashment of C.C.No.281 of 2024 (JMFC, Vinukonda) for offences under Sections 417, 420 IPC and 7(1), 7(2) & 20(2) COTPA via petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS;
AllowedOpenHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Sri Justice Harinath.N), Criminal Petition No. 6557 of 2025, decided 01/07/2025: A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No.
AllowedOpen
Bail sought by an accused arrested with 9 kilograms of banned tobacco products. The court noted his period of incarceration, clean antecedents, and substantially completed investigation, and granted bail on a bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions including daily police reporting and no tampering…
AllowedOpenMadras High Court (C. Kumarappan, J.), by order dated 13-07-2026 in CRL OP No. 18086 of 2026 filed under section 483 of BNSS, 2023, granted bail to Periyasamy, arrested and remanded on 29.06.2026 in Crime No.
AllowedOpenThe Madras High Court granted bail to petitioners arrested for possession of banned tobacco products (2.5 kg) under Sections 7(5) and 20(2) of the COTPA and Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, citing small quantity and lack of severe antecedents. Bail is subject to a bond and daily reporting.
AllowedOpenAnticipatory bail granted (Madras High Court, P. Dhanabal, J., 14-05-2026) in CRL OP No. 12744 of 2026 under Section 482 of BNSS. Petitioner Jitendra Van apprehended arrest in Crime No.250 of 2025 (Hudco Police Station, Krishnagiri District) for offences under Sections 6 r/w 20(1) of COTPA Act, 2003, 123 of BNS, 2023…
AllowedOpenMadras High Court (P. Dhanabal, J.) allowed CRL OP No. 11548 of 2026 on 14-05-2026 granting anticipatory bail under Section 482 B.N.S.S. to Shureshbhai Chaudhari in Crime No.387/2025 of SIPCOT Police Station, Krishnagiri District, for offences under Sections 123 BNS, Sections 7 & 20(1) COTPA Act and Section 4(1)(c)…
AllowedOpenAnticipatory bail sought by a person whose name was not in the FIR, accused of transporting banned tobacco products and rum seized from an intercepted vehicle. Court granted bail on conditions including daily police reporting and bond with two sureties.
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
Quash petition under Section 528 BNSS allowed; proceedings in C.C. No.3470 of 2025 (FIR No.77 of 2017, P.S. Chandrayangutta) against accused No.6, Sajid Ali Khan, for offences under Section 420 IPC and Sections 5, 6, 7 r/w 20(2), 22 and 24(1) COTPA quashed following Crl.P.No.5577 of 2023 dated 08.08.2024 (COTPA…
AllowedOpenMadras High Court (P. Dhanabal J., 30.12.2025), Crl.O.P.No.35666 of 2025: anticipatory bail allowed under S.482 BNSS in Crime No.188/2025 (Pappireddipatti PS, Dharmapuri) for possession/transport of 475 kgs banned tobacco products under S.123 BNSS and Ss.7, 20(2) COTPA Act 2003;
AllowedOpenAnticipatory bail granted; banned tobacco products possession case; Crime No.326/2025 Velipalayam Police Station Nagapattinam; Sections 275, 123 BNS; Section 269 BNS 2023 fresh FIR on absconding; Sections 7, 20(1) Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 (COTPA); previous case bail already granted;
AllowedOpenPetitioners sought bail in a case of illegal transport of 520 kgs of banned tobacco products under COTPA and BNS provisions. The court noted no previous cases against them and the period of incarceration already suffered, and granted bail on conditions including daily police reporting.
AllowedOpen
Related subjects
- Quashing and FIR4,33,347
- Constitutional and Fundamental Rights21,58,139