Allowed

Nidamanuri Rama Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Sept 2019CRLP/5160/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram U. Durga Prasad Rao, J, the Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners for offences under specific sections of the IPC and the FSS Act. The ruling was based on the prior common order quashing similar offences and a procedural violation regarding the suo moto registration of the FIR under Section 188 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under specified IPC and FSS Act sections against the petitioners are hereby quashed; interlocutory applications closed.

Nidamanuri Rama Rao Vs the State of Ap — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5160 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The petitioners/accused seek to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.600 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, where cognizance was taken against them for the offences under Sections 353 , 273, 188 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 58, 59 and 63 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ( for short ‘FSS Act, 2006).

¶4

2. The allegations against the petitioner briefly are that on 14.12.2017, when the complainant along with his staff visited kirana shop and beedi bunk at Puttavaripalem cross road, they found two persons trying to hide plastic bags under the tables on enquiry, they revealed that they are selling the tobacco products illegally, the Police seized the same under the cover of mediator’s report. After the investigation, police filed charge sheet for the offences stated supra .

¶5

3. Learned counsel for petitioners while denying the FIR allegations would submit that even if the prosecution case is accepted to be true, tobacco products would not fall within the definition of Section 3(j) of FSS Act and therefore, the Police are not authorized to register the crime, investigate and file charge sheet and therefore, registration of the FIR is contrary to the provisions of FSS Act. He relied upon the order of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.3731 of 2018 and batch, dated 27.08.2018. As can be seen, in the said common order a

¶6

¶7

learned Judge of this Court partly allowed the criminal petitions and quashed the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code and FSS Act.

¶8

4. So far as the offence under Section 188 of IPC is concerned, as per Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C, no Court shall take cognizance of the said offence except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such Officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. However, in the instant case, the F.I.R is registered suo moto filed on the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police of Santhamaguluru Police Station. Therefore, it is the violation of Section 195 of Cr.P.C so far as the Section 188 of IPC is concerned and therefore, the said offence is also liable to be quashed.

¶9

5. Following the above order and for the reasons recorded therein, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Sections 353 , 273, 188 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 58, 59 and 63 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, are hereby quashed.

¶10

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.

¶11

__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶12

Date: 18.09.2019 pab

Nidamanuri Rama Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidamanuri Rama Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Manoj Kumar Vs State of Ap

M. Gangadhar Reddy Vs Apgenco Rep. by its Managing Director

S.Rajeswari Vs State of Ap

T.V Lakshmi Vs B.Vasanthi

Syed Abdul Wahid Vs State of Ap

D Chandrasekhar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh