Section 22. Punishment for advertisement of cigarettes and tobacco products
Whoever contravenes the provision of section 5 shall, on conviction, be punishable--
(a) in the case of first conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both, and
(b) in the case of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
How courts have applied section 22
- Bail granted where investigation is over or contraband seized; refused for large quantities or prior similar cases.1,2,3
- Quashing allowed where a coordinate-bench order covered identical matters in the same FIR.4,5,6
- Hookah pot held not per se a tobacco product; no ban on its sale.6
- Police powers to inspect and seize upheld; general trade license does not authorize hookah centres.7
- Non-cognizable offence requires a separate reasoned Magistrate order to investigate; failure vitiates conviction.8
- Proceedings quashed where prosecution solely from possession of gutka or tobacco products, per earlier common order.9
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here are predominantly bail and quashing orders in prosecutions under Section 22 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, read with Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Courts granted anticipatory or regular bail where custodial interrogation was not required, the investigation was largely complete, or the contraband had already been seized. Bail was refused where the quantity of banned tobacco products was large, the offence was considered grave, or there was a previous similar case pending. Conditions commonly attached included daily police reporting, bonds with sureties, and undertakings against tampering with evidence.1,2,4,10,11,12,3,13
On quashing of proceedings, a prior coordinate-bench order in identical matters arising from the same FIR was treated as covering the case, and proceedings were quashed when the prosecution raised no objection. Where the charge sheet disclosed no act meeting the essentials of Sections 5, 6, 7, 20(2), 22 or 24(1), and coordinate benches had quashed proceedings against the principal offenders, continuing against a co-accused was held an abuse of process. A hookah pot was held not per se a tobacco product, with no provision banning its sale. Courts also quashed proceedings where prosecution arose solely from possession or transportation of gutka or tobacco products, relying on an earlier common order.4,5,6,9
One decision upheld police powers to inspect and seize under the Act, holding that general trade licenses did not authorize running hookah centres and that the Act prohibits service in public places unless a separate smoking area is provided. In a different context, a conviction was set aside because the offence was non-cognizable and the Magistrate's permission under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not a separate reasoned order, vitiating the investigation. A Magistrate discharging an accused in a summary trial was held patently illegal where process had not been served or returned unexecuted.7,8,14,15
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 22
Petition 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.
DisposedOpenQuash 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…
AllowedOpenA hookah pot is an instrument used in consumption of tobacco but not per se a tobacco product; no provision bans its sale. The charge-sheet disclosed no act meeting the essentials of Sections 5, 6, 7, 20(2), 22 or 24(1) of the COTPA Act, nor any cheating or dishonest inducement attracting Section 420 IPC.
AllowedOpenWrit petition (Art. 226) by Shaik Meera Saheb seeking mandamus against alleged police inaction on his statement in Medico Legal Case No. 83/20 dated 04-08-2020, Government Area Hospital, Gudivada; respondents: State of AP (Home), SP Machilipatnam, DSP Machilipatnam, SHO Mudineapalli PS, Krishna District.
DisposedOpenPetition under Sections 438 and 482 CrPC sought anticipatory bail in a case involving the Poisons Act, tobacco products law, IPC and excise provisions. Counsel withdrew the petition with liberty to surrender; the court permitted withdrawal and requested the trial court to decide any bail application on the same day.
DismissedOpenPetitioners sought quashing of a charge-sheet for offences under the IPC and COTPA concerning banned tobacco products. Following the Court's earlier common order holding chewing tobacco is not food and such prosecutions untenable, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.
AllowedOpen
Show 6 more
The Court disposed of 50+ writ petitions against police interference in hookah businesses common to all. It held that police powers under COTP Act allow inspection, and held that general trade licenses do not permit hookah service.
DisposedOpenThe High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal revision petition, setting aside convictions for offences under Section 273 IPC and the COTPA. The court held the investigation was invalid because the police failed to obtain a proper judicial order permitting investigation of a non-cognizable offence under Section 155…
AllowedOpenThe High Court allowed the bail application of Bankim Gharami, charged with tobacco smuggling and cheating under the COTPA and IPC. The court noted his surrender and lack of antecedents, granting bail subject to specific conditions.
AllowedOpenBail sought in a case alleging illegal possession of 400 kgs of banned tobacco products under BNS, COTPA and Food Safety provisions. Considering the gravity of the offence, the poisonous nature of the goods, and a pending previous similar case against the petitioner, the court declined bail and dismissed the petition.
DismissedOpenSuo motu criminal revisions against the Magistrate's orders discharging accused and stopping proceedings in some fifty summary trial cases, mostly petty offences under the IPC, Motor Vehicles Act, Abkari Act, NDPS Act and COTPA.
AllowedOpenThe High Court suo motu set aside orders of discharge passed by a Magistrate in multiple summary trials where the accused had not appeared. The Court held that discharging absconding accused under Section 258 Cr.P.C. without proper procedure is illegal. The cases were remanded for continuation of trial.
AllowedOpen
Bail granted; Madras High Court; Crl.O.P. under Section 483 BNSS 2023; offences under Sections 123 BNS 2023 and Section 22(a) Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act 2003; possession of 13.200 kgs banned tobacco products along with other accused; Crime No.1028 of 2025, North Police Station, Tiruppur;
AllowedOpenMadras High Court (N. Senthilkumar J.) allowed CRL OP No. 27111 of 2025 and granted anticipatory bail to Ramakrishnan, who apprehended arrest in Crime No.1122 of 2025 of Tiruppur North Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 123 of B.N.S.
AllowedOpenCrl.O.P.No.25371 of 2025, Madras High Court, decided 16.09.2025 by Justice K.Rajasekar. Bail under Section 483 BNSS Act 2023 sought in Cr.No.1028 of 2025, Tiruppur, for offences under Section 123 BNS 2023 and Section 22(a) COTPA 2003; seizure of 13.200 kgs banned tobacco products; bail refused; petition dismissed.
DismissedOpenMadras High Court, Crl.O.P.No.6410 of 2025, decided 06.03.2025 by Sunder Mohan J. Bail granted to Selvaraj (Accused 2) in Crime No.226 of 2025 of Tiruppur South Police Station under Section 123 BNS r/w Section 22(a) COTPA (possession of 1.100 kgs banned tobacco products); arrested/remanded 24.02.2025;
AllowedOpenBail petition by the third accused arrested for possessing 426 kgs of banned tobacco products under Section 123 BNS read with Section 22(a) COTPA. Considering the nature of offences, prior cases in which he was released on bail, and period of incarceration, the court granted bail on conditions including daily police…
AllowedOpenThe Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who was the 2nd accused in a tobacco product case, considering a change in circumstances and substantial investigation progress, subject to specific bail conditions.
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged offences under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act. The petitioner was required to disclose the source of banned products and comply with strict reporting and non-tampering conditions.
AllowedOpenPetitioner, accused under Section 328 IPC and COTPA, sought anticipatory bail. Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's antecedents, including nine previous cases with prior convictions on admission, precluded the grant of bail.
DismissedOpenThe petitioner sought anticipatory bail for arrest in a case involving seizure of tobacco products. The court held that bail was not inclinded to be granted due to the facts, dismissing the petition and ordering the petitioner's custody.
DismissedOpenCriminal Original Petition filed for anticipatory bail regarding alleged offences under Section 328 IPC and Section 22(a) of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 for selling banned tobacco products.
AllowedOpen