Allowed

Abdul Azher v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Apr 2021CRLP/2391/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Prosecution for purchasing and selling banned tobacco products was quashed against both accused. The court held that the complaint lacked ingredients of the IPC and COTPA offences and directed return of seized property after identification and ownership verification.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against both petitioners quashed; seized property ordered returned after proper identification and ownership verification under acknowledgment.

Abdul Azher Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

l.A. NO. 3 0F 2021 IN/AND

¶6

c RIMINAL PETITION NO: 2391 OF²⁰²¹

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Abdul Azher, S/o.Saleem, aged.4O^{years, Occ. Driver,R/o H.No'1 1-6-268,} Ek Minar, Nampally, HYderabad.

¶9

Abdul Wasay, S/o.Asad Ali^{Khan, aged.3g years, Occ Driver, FIo H.No.17-1-} 319/6/8, Riyasath Nagar, Saidabad,^Hyderabad.

¶10

.,.PETITIONERS IN BOTH

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Tetangana, rep by its^{Public ProsecutorHigh Court of} Hyderabad. Through-P.S. RamaChandrapuram,^{Cyberabad,Hyderabad, T.S.} -Telangana,

¶13

...RESPONDENT IN BOTH

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the N,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the High Court may be pleased} to Quash the^proceedings vide^{FIR No.182} of^{2021 Dt.09- 03-2021,Registered} UiSec. 273,188 r/w 34 lPC, 3(m),^{20(2)COTPA on the file of SHO of PS} Ramachandrapuram, Cyberabad,^Hyderabad as^{illegal, contrary to law, wtthout} jurisdiction and as such liable to be quashed in the interest of^justice.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of^Cr.P .C^{praying thatin the circumstancesstated} in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the HighCourtmaybe pleased} to stay all further^proceedings in^pursuance of the^{crime FIR No.'182 of 2021 Dt.09-} 03-2021, Registered U/Sec.273,188 r/w 34 lPC,3(m),20(2)^{COTPAon the file of} SHO of PS Ramachandrapuram, Cyberabad,^{Hyderabad,pending disposal of the} Quash Petition.

¶17

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the [,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^{the High Court may be pleased} to Direct the police to release the Property seized^{i.e., 50 Miraj Bags and Tatalndica} Car bearing No AP 10 AR 2404 seized in^pursuance of the crime^{vide FIR No.182of} 2021, Dt.09-03-202'l , Registered U/Sec. 273,188 r/w 34 lPC, 3(m), 20(2) COTPA on the file of SHO of PS Ramachand rapuram, Cyberabad,^pending disposal of^the Quash Petition.

¶19

. This Petition coming on for^{hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of criminal^{Petitjonand upon hearingthe arguments of Sri s. M. Subhan,} Advocate for the Petitioners^{in both and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the} Respondent in both.

¶20

The Court made the^{following: COMMON ORDER}

¶21

rro\Br_E stU,tt sTr( t. K. L-\t(stIltA,\

¶22

LA.\o.3 ot 202l Irr.\ntl CRI\lI.\L l,l-'l'ITIO\ \o.2391 OI. 202t

¶23

COMMON ORDER:

¶24

'fhis pelitio,r is fiiecl trr.rder Section 182 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.IB2 ol 2021 on the llle of I{aurachandrapuram P.S.. Cvberabad. against the petitioners. The petitioncrs herein are accuseci Nos.I and 2 in the above said crime. l'he ofitnces alleueci against thenr are undel Secrions -273.l.88 read ri ith 34 o1' IPC iLnd Secrion -l(rl.) - l() (l ) o1'the ('igarencs and Other 'i olrace o Products I Pliriril.itiol Lri' \tii ctliscntr'nt and Rcgr.rlltion oi 'I'racle and Corruncree" I)rotlLre iior.r. SLrppl.r rnd DisLribLrtionl ,,\ct. 1003 ti'rx sirolt C-^(,, I P .\ci'r. llt.' p.',.iLio:rcr-s also lllcd i.A.\o.3 oi'102 1 lor leIuur of rraterial. u,hich u as seizc.tl in the above said crime.

¶25

I{eard Mr. S.M. SLrbhan" learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant PubLic Prosccuror appearing on behall ol respondents. Perused the entire material available on record.

¶26

The leaurcd counsel lor the perltioners uould submit that the alleeations Ievcllccl against thc petitioncr.s lacks the ingredients ol the aibresaid ol-teltces and. therclbre. lre soLrshr to qLrash the pr.oceeciings a!.einst thc lletiIioncls. ln sLrpport ol'ilrc saLre, he ltas placed r.e]iance

¶27

on the^judgrxent in Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telanganar rendered by a leamed Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States olTelangana and Andhra Pradesh.

¶28

4, On the othel hand. lcalned Assistant Public Prosecutor'lras tried to distirrgLrish the pli:rciple laid dowrr in the said^jr,rdgrnent to the IiicLs o I'the plcscnl cusc

¶29

PerLrsecl Lhe .lircienrenL rn Chidurala Shyamsubder' (supra). wherein a learned Single Judge of the High Court observed that t|anspoftation of cher'ving tobacco or Khaini or Pan Masala do not constitute an ollence punishable urrder Section 188 ol IPC ancl that manufacturing of pan rnasala is not included in Section - 273 ol IPC and, therefore, the sarne is not an olfence since it is not a noxious food. The learned Single.ludge firrther observed as under:

¶30

"....The act done br the petitioners i.e.. transportation olkhaini and chewirrg tobacco though dangcrous to human Iife, it would not splcacl or inlcct or carrsc anr disease on account clf trar.rspollilior an(l il thosc Ir'r)(lucts arc cot.rsurnecl [T1 huntan being. it uoLrlci ccrtainlr caLrsc dantagc tr) thc health. Jherelble. lranspon,lii)r ol'l,li,lrni or. e ire u in,: tol',ae co is not bv itsc]f is not an olltncc undcr Scction - l-ll^()l ll)( iind it uould liill s.iLhin Section l=(t ol ll)(^'

¶31

In the present case. tllc allegation levelled against the petitioners l-rerein is that they are purchasing the banned tobacco

¶32

'.^{Crl.P.No.373l of20l8 & barch, decided on} 27.08.2018

¶33

products and selling ther.n ro rerailers to get more profits illegally. In view of the above said decision, the contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of Sections - 273 and 188 ofIpC and, therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid crime for the said offences are liable to be quashed against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶34

.{s Lar as Section I (nr ) ancl 20 (2) ol rhe CO-l'p Act is conce'necl. as staLetl el--',Or c. thc illlc!utions aglinst rhc pcriliolrers are that Lhcr, ele -.clling tltr lol.:reio l-rirr1j11i.1; LLI Ihc cLlsLollcr.s illegalli.in OI'(lel Lo uailt tirgrr!.iul 1-.1'61;1.. llt ,,:,-.',', el'tit,-. saicl alleqafion. it is apt to letel to Scction - l0 Ll) oi'rite ( () I I) ..\e L rbr beiter appr.eciation o1. thc case a.d to clecicle the issLrc i, tlLlcstio.. ancl the same is as Lrnder:

¶35

"20. Purrishnrcnt Ior Ililurc to givc speciliecl rvarning :rnd nicotine ilnd tnt. contents. -

¶36

(1)...

¶37

(2) Any person who sclls or tjistributes cigarettes or tobacco ploclucts which do not contain either on the package or on their label. rhc specified waming and the nicotine and tar corltents shall in the case of first conviction be punishable rvith imprisonment for a term. which rr.ray extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees! or rvith both, and, for the second or subsequent conviction. with imprisonment for a tenn which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to three thoLrsand rupees."

¶38

8, lhLrs. Section 3(nrJ uncl l0 ot'CO-t-p Acr deals w,ith

¶39

punishr.nent fbr' lailr-rre to i.rirc srrceillcrl *alr.ring unti nrcotine anri tar conLetlts. r\s sLalcd utror e. iite .Lilir,:.rLlr,,t :tlajnst the petitionets herein is that ther purchlrsc tLr L-i.rr e (.) ll.()(lLtel:.i;tcl scil thern io eLlstontets:rt

¶40

¶41

higlrer plices to gairr^ri tonglirl^{plotits []r-rt. in the cornplaint, thereis} r-ro allegation against the^{petitioners that they are carryingon trade or} commerce in oontraband^{or any other tobacco productswithoutlabel} and specified^{warningon the said products. In vier.v of the same. the} contents of the conrplaint iack^{the ingredientsof Section3(m) and 20} (2) ol the CO'l P ,\ct. E.r,en. thete is no allegation that the^seized products do rrot contain labels \'ith st.atutorv warrling.^l'hus. legisterirrg lhc clttrc^jiu lhc srid ol'lcrtce against thc^{pcLitiorr.-lsis not} onll cor.rtlarr ti-. Scctrtrn - .iinrIl0 rl) oi'C Ol P^{Act. br-rt also cottttarr} to the principl.' lricl iiori n in^(,hidrrrala Shlanrstrbdcr^(supra).In r ierv ol' the sanrc. th.: oi'linc,-' uncier Sectiotr - .l(rtt) artcl l0 lll oi COTP Act is aiso liablc to bc^quashed agarnst^{the petitioners- accused} Nos.1 and 2.

¶42

ln view o1' the abovg discussion, the^present Criminal Petition is allou,ed. ancl the proceedings in Cr.No.l 82 of 2021 on the file of Ramachandrapuranr I).S., C;,berabad, are hereby^quashed against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶43

Lr. No.i ol- 2021 is frled b1' the petitioners ['o r returtr of material. uh:clr ri cr',,' ..'rz.'d irt the abore saicl clittte. Since th.' proceedings in llre uiir:c,saiti .ase aIc qLrashed acainst the^peiilione|s herein - accuscci \os.I unil I in Cr.\o. I 8l ol l0l1 . the Station Housc Oftlcer. llanrlclrancllapLrranr I).S. rs clircctecl to retunl thc seized

¶44

propcrly, on proper idcntillcation and velillcatior-r ol owner.ship ol

¶45

seized property under due acknowledgment.

¶46

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

¶47

criminal petition shall stand closed.

SD/.K.VENKAIAH

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY'

\//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Prohibition and Excise Offences Court at Sangareddy, Hyderabad District.

¶55

The Station House Officer, Ramachand rapuram Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶56

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶57

One CC to Sri S. M. Subhan, Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Two CD Copies

¶59

(Along with a Copy of Common Order dated 27.08.2018 in Crl.P.No.3731 of 2018 & Batch)

sbr ^\ }--

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2010412021

COMMON ORDER

r.A. NO.3 0F 2021

IN/AN D

CRLP.No.2391 of 2021

E sTAx€
1
(
12 MAY 2021
+.
e, +- ,cf
c66o,q1c

¶68

ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION.

¶69

¶70

)-\

¶71

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY} CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.373¹ 3634^{3765376659665967} s968. 5969 . 5970. 5971.5972.67s4 . 6755. 6758.6811⁶⁸¹⁵ 6859. 6954, 6955. 7081, 8216 and 7851^qf201q

¶72

COMMO N ORDER

¶73

These criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 ol Criminal Procedure Code^(for short "Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused in different cases. The details of offences, crime^{numbers,accused number,}

¶74

nature of offence are mentioned in the table^{given below'}

¶75

st. No	Crl.P,No	Crime Numtrer	Accu sed Number	Offences allegedlr' committed	of Nature offence
l	3731of2018	34 of 2018of Manal(ondur PoliceStation	A,1	u/s328, '27Oand'273 ofI.P.C.	Transportation ofPan Masala andTobacco Products
)	363,+of2018	26 ot2Ol8of Nakkapalli PoliceStation	and 2 3	uls272, 273,328and 120-Bof I.P.C.	Transportation ofKhaini Packets
3	3765 ol2018	509of2017 ofNacharam PoliceStation	A,1	u/s272, 273,420, 188ofI.P.C. andSection 7(1) (2)(3) (5)and 26of Cigarettes and OtherTobacco Products (Prohibitionof Advertisement andRegulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supplyand Distributjon) Act, 20o3(for short "COTP Act"	Manufacturing Pan Masala.
4	3766 of2Ol8	5O9of2017 ofNacharam PoliceStation	4.2	u/s 272, 273, 42{o, 188oIl.P.C. andSection 7(1){2)(3) (5) ancl26of COTPAct 2003	Manufacturing Pan Masala.
5	5966 of 2018	215of2018 ofNacharam PoliceStation	A,1	u/s 188, 272,273of I,P.C,	Transportation ofPan Masala

¶76

Crlp-373 l_201 8 and batch MSM, J

¶77

T()	5967ot2ola	215of20 18 ofNacharam PoliceStation	l	U/S )'7) I,P,C 188, 273ot	Transportation ofPan Masala
	5968of2018	215of2018 ofNacharam PoliceSlation	4.3	U/S 188, l?.'r:;.ut or	ITransporrarion I I or PanMasara
B	5969 of2Ol8	215of2018 ofNacharam PoliceStation		U/S )7' I.P,C 188, 273of	Transportation ofPan Masala
9	5970 oI 2018	215of2018 ofNacharam PoliceStation	A.5	u/s 188, 272,273ot I.P.C-	Transportation ofPan Masala
l0	5971of2018	372ot2Ol8 ofMedipally PoliceStation	A.1	u/s 188, 272,273 readwith34 of I.P.C.	Manufacturing andpackingof Pan Masala
l1	5972o{2018	372of2018 ofMedipally PoliceStation	A.2	u/s 188, 272,273 readwith34 ofI.P.C. I	Manufacturing andpackingof Pan Masala
12 I	6754 ot2Ol8	13of 2018 of Golkonda PoliceStation	A.3	u/s 273, 188oft.P.C. andSection 59(i) FSSAct	Saleof Masala Tobacco Products lZarda) Pan and
13	6755of2018	509of2017 ofNacharam PoliceStation	A.3and 4.4	u/s 272, 273,420, 188ofI.P.C. andSection 7(1)(2){3) (5)and 26of COTPACt, 2003	Manufacturing Pan Masala.
l4	6758 of2018	6lof2017of Karimnagar PoliceStation	A.3	u/s 270, 273 and328 of l.P.C.	Dealing Tobacco uith rodtrcts
l5	681Iof 20l8	235of2018 of Patancheru PoliceStation	4.3	u/s 27o, 273otl.P.C. Section20(2) readrvith7 (2)ofCOTP Act,2003	Transportation oIPanMasala andTobacco
t6	6816of2018	235of2018 of Patancheru PoliceStation	I 2 and	u/s 27o, 273oll.P.C. Section20(2) readwith7 (2)ofCOTP Act, 2003	Transportation ofPanMasala andTobacco
t7	6859of2018	26 of 2018 of Nakkapalli PoliceStation	A.l	U/S t20 I.P. C. 328, Bof	Transportation of Khaini Packets
18	6954 of 2018	231of2018 of Visakh apatnam IV Town PoliceStation	A.l A.4 to L	u/s 324, 273, 188 readwith34 ofI.P.C.and u/s59,58 and 63of FSSAct	Transportation of Khaini Packets
t9	6955of2O18	53 of 2018 of Nakkapalli PoliceStation	l	UIS273of I.P.C.and u/sls6(3) ofCr.P.C.	Transportation of Gutka Packets

¶78

Crlp_373 1 201 8 and batch MSM, J

¶79

-3

¶80

20	7081of2018	C.C.No.160 of2016on the flleof Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass at lchapuram.	A.2 A.4	tol I	u/s 270, 273ofI.P.C. U/S 54and 59 ofFSS Act andSection 20ofCOTP Act	Manufacturing of Tobacco Products.
2l	8216 of2Ol8	C.C.No.159 of 2016on the fileof Judicial Magistrateof FirstClass at lchapuram.	A.2	and	u/s 27o, 273oll.P.C. U/S54and 59 ofFSS Act andSection 20ofCOTP Act	Transportation of Tobacco products.
22	7851 ol20l8	84 of2018of Modugula PoliceStation	A.1 A.2	and	UIS273ol I.P.C.and under Section^'2') read^.,Yith5 oICOTPAct	Transportation ofRajaKaini

¶81

As the question involved in all the^{petitions is identical, I find} that it is expedient to decide all the^{petitionsby common order.}

¶82

The petitioners filed these criminal^{petitions underSection} 482 of Cr.P.C. on the^ground that^{the local police are incompetent to} take up investigation and to file^{charge sheet for the offence} punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) of FSS Act.^{Whereas the} allegations made in the charge sheet and the^{statements recorded} by the poiice during investigation under^{Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. does} not disclose the commission of offence^{punishable under Sections} 27O and 273 of I.P.C. or any other offences^{referredin columnNo.4} of the Table referred supra. When the charge^{sheets and F.l.Rs do} not disclose prima facie material to conclude that they committed the above offences, the Court can exercise power under Section⁴⁸² ol Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the^petitioners.

¶83

During hearing, Sri P.Vikram and R.Siva Sai Swaroop, Iearned counsel for the petitioners contended that though khaini is a Tobacco product, it would not fall within the definition of Section 3[i) of the FSS Act. Therefore, the^police are incompetent to investigate into and file charge sheet, totally contravening the

¶84

Crlp_373 l_201 8 and batch MSM, J

¶85

-1

¶86

procedure prescribed under the^{provisionsof FSS Act. Underthe} FSS Act, Food Safetv Officer^{aloneis competentto draw samples} and investigate into. Therefore,^{the policelacks inherent jurisdiction} to investigate into the^{offences. On} this^{ground alone, the} proceedings against the petitioners for the offences^punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) FSS Act are^liable to^{be quashed.} Similarly, registration of crimes against the^petitioners is also^an illegality since local poiice are not competent to investigate into the offences.

¶87

Yet, another contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that none of the allegations made in the charge sheet and statements recorded by the police during investigation so also in F.i.Rs. does not disclose the basic ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Sections mentioned in the table above.

¶88

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of High Court of Patna rendered in " Omkar Agencg u. The Food Safetg and Standard.s Authoritg of Ind.lat" in support of their contentrons.

¶89

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State for the States ol Andhra Pradesh and Telangana contended that Tobacco is prohibited by the Central Government by amending the provisions of COTP Act, which came into force on 18.05.2003, whereby the trade and commerce, and production, supply and distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco products are prohibited. The sale and transportation of Tobacco products would constitute the offence punishable under Sections 270 and 273 ol I.P.C., so also under Sections 54 and 59(1) FSS Act and prayed to dismiss the criminal

¶90

I AIR 2016 Par | 60

¶91

Crlp_373 l_201 8 and batch MSM, J

¶92

-5-

¶93

petitions. Similarly, manufacturing of Pan Masala is^also contravention of^provisions of FSS Act.

¶94

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State mainly contended that Cheu'ing Tobacco is a food product in vieu' of comprehensive delinition of lood under Seclion 3 [) o1'FSS^{Act since} it^{is u'iderthan} tl-re dellnition of food undcr Food^{AdultcrationAct and placed} reliance on the^judgment of High Court of^{Bombayrendered in} " Dhariwal Industries Limited,^{Ghodautat Pan Masala Products} (I) Put. Ltd, Rajnandini Foods Pvt. Ltd' SDD^{Agencies Put.Ltd.'} Hira Enterprises, Rajat Industries Pfiaate Limited'^{MSS Food} Processors !. State of Maharashtrq2"^{and anotherjudgment of} High Court of Madras rendered^{in " J,Anbazhdgdn u. The Union oJ}

¶95

Indla3'

¶96

Considering rival contentions,^{perusing the materialavailable} on record, the points that arise^{for consideration are as follows:}

¶97

1. Whether the respondent/ Sub-Inspector of Police'^is competent to inaestigate into the olfence^punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) of FSS^Act?

¶98

1. Whether the^petitioners in all the^{petitions are} found committing @ng dct toith malicious^{intention, with} knousledge and. reason to belieue that^{such act likelg} to spread the infection oJ ang diseqse^dangerousto life? And ushether the petitioners selling or offering or exposing for sale as food or drink, ang article which has been rendered or has becorne noxious or is in^a state unJit for food or drink or redson to belieue that the same is noxious as Jood or drink? IJ so, are^theg liable to be proceeded for the offence^punishable under Sections 27O and 273 IPC.?

¶99

'^{LAws(BoM)-2012-9-29}

¶100

r 2018 scc onlin" Mad 1231

¶101

Crlp_373 l_2018 and batch MSM, J

¶102

¶103

POINTNo.T:

¶104

The first and foremost contention raised before this Court is that the respondents - Sub-Inspector of Police and the Inspector of Police are not competent to investigate into the offence^punishable under Sections 54 and 59( 1) of FSS Act.

¶105

"section 54 o/ fSS Act deals with penattg Jor food. containing extrdneous mater^- Ang person whether by himsetf or by ang other person on his behalf manuJactures Jor sale or stores or sells or distributes ot imports ang drticle oJ Jood for humdn consumption contq.irring extrq.'reous matter, shall be liable to a penaltg ruhich mag extend to one lakh rupees.

¶106

Section 59(i) o./ .lrSS r{ct deals with punishment Jor unsafe food, - cr.ng person uho, uthether bg himself or bg ang other person on his behaf, manuJactures Jor sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports dng article of food lor human consumption^phich is unsdfe, sh(,ll be punishable,-

¶107

(1) where such fallure or contrauention d.oes not result in lnjury."

¶108

Therefore, both the offences pertaining to sale, store and manufacturing of such food article, which is prohibited and unsafe for human consumption. The word 'food' is defined under Section 3(j) of FSS Act, which reads thus:

¶109

"Food n.er:ns ang substance, whether^processed., partiallg processed or unprocessed, whlch is intended Jor human consumption and includes prlmary food, to the extend delined in clause (ZK) geneticallg mod.ified or engineered food. or Jood corltq.ining such ingred.ients, inJsnt Jood, packaged. drinking water, alcohollc d.ink, chewing gum, and ang subst(rnce, including water used. into the Jood during its mq.nujacture, preparation or treqtment but does not include ang animal feed, live animals unless theg are prepared or processed. for placlng on the md.rket for humq.n consumption, plsnts prior to hat'oestlng, d.ntgs d.nd. med.lcinql products, cosmetlcs, narcotic or psgchotroplc substd,nces:

¶110

Proald.ed that the Central Government mag declare, bg nottication tn the OfJlciql Gazette, ang other article as food. for^{the purposeso.f} this Act ho,ulng regard.s to its use, nq.ture, substa.nce or quality ;"

¶111

Crlp_3731 201 8 and batch MSM, J

¶112

¶113

Though the word 'food' as delined under section 3fi) oi^FSS Act is inclusive, the chewing tobacco was not included in Section 3fi) oi FSS Act. Manufacturing or transportation ol Pan Masala is not an offence. ln " Godawdt Po,n Masala^{ProductsI.P. Ltd. and} a.nother u/s. lJnion of Indid" the Apex Court analyzed^the definition of 'food' under Section 2(v) of lhe^Prevention of^Food Adulteration Act and Rules, 1955 as under:

¶114

" There is merit in the contentions o.f the rrppellr:,rtts. Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Preuention oJ Food Adulteratlon Rules, 7962 and the corresponding tule ln the Goa, Daman and. Diu Preoention of Food Adulteration Rules, 7982 suggest that the pouer giuen to the Food (Health) Authority ls onlg a pro tem^power to deal uith an emergent sltuatlon, such as outbreak of ang infectious d.lsease, uhich mag be due to ang article of Jood. Certainlg, such potuer uould include the pouer to ban "Jor the time being" the sale of such injurTous articles oJ Jood. Hence, there is cr co rresp onding protision in Sectton 7(iu) of the Act, In other uords, uhen a contingencg envisaged. bg Rule 3, or one sirnilar thereto, arises and it becomes necessary for FHA to take immediate steps, FHA is ernpouered to prohibit 'for the tlme being" the injurious drticle concerfled and to take ang appropriate step "in the interest of public health".

¶115

On the collocation of the statutory provisions, it is not posslble to accept the states' contention thdt Section 7(iu) is an lndependent source of power or thtrt the 1964 amendment to Section 7(iu) had the effect oJ empouertng FHA to prohiblt the s(,.le o;f ang article "ln the interest of public health". ?his conclzsion is also supported bg its legislatiae history.

¶116

It utas improper that despite the 7964 dmend.ment in Section 7(tv), the ntles were not con'espond.inglg updated, Ho.Deuer, going str-tctlg bg the State Rules, which actuallg determine the extent of the pou;er ol

¶117

o (2004) ? scc 68

¶118

Crlp_373 l_201 E and batch MSM, J

¶119

¶120

FHA, the argument of the states that the^said amendment uo's intended to^giue a carte blanche to FHA cannot be accepted. The^power of the State FHA,^whlch ls dlscendble under Section 24(2)(a) read rolth the Stdte Rules, operates onlg for a tempordry period during uthich an emergent situation exists which needs to^be controlled, Section 7(iu) does not clothe trHA totth the pouer to issrze c ban order for a longer perlod,

¶121

Eoen assuming thot gutka and tobacco products are injuries to health, the power of their prohibition is onlg uested. utith the Central Govertment and not with the State Food (Health) Authorities.

¶122

Again, applging the principles o;f harmonlous consttltction, it is not posslble to hold that Section 7(iv) is an independent source of pouter, The pouer of the Stdte und.er Section 7(iu) of the Act is stdtutory; absolute to the extent provided therein, and limited to the extent indicated bg Section 23(1-4) of the Act."

¶123

The definition of the word 'food'under Section 3fi) of FSS Act is identical to the definition of the word 'food' under Section 2(v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, 1955 made therein, chewing tobacco is not included in the definition of pod' under Section 3[) of FSS Act, but it is a prohibited product under the COTP Act, 2003.

¶124

Therefore, the Inspector of Police and the Sub-lnspector ol Police are incompetcnt to investigate into the olfence punishable under the provisions of FSS Act. Even assuming that chewing tobacco is a food w,ithin the definition provided under Section 3[) of FSS Act, the Foocl Safety Officer is empowered to investigate into the olfence punishable under the provisions of the FSS Act.

¶125

ln " M/s.Pepslco India Holdlngs (Pttt) Ltd,, and Another u. State of U,P.s" the Allahabad High Court had an occasion to deal

¶126

5 201t(2) Crimes 250

¶127

Crlp 3731_2018 and batch MSM, J

¶128

-9-

¶129

with similar question, extracted the definition of the^word'/ood' under Section 3(i) of FSS Act, so also the word food additiue' as defined under Section 3(k) of FSS Act, it means any substance not normally consumed as a food by itself or used as a rypical ingredient of the food, whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional addition of which to food for a technological (including organoleptic) purpose in the manufacture,^{processing,preparation,} treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food results, or may be reasonably expected to result^(directly or indirectly), in it or its by products becoming a competent of or otherwise affecting the characteristics of such food but does not include "contaminants" or substances added to food for maintaining or improving nutritional qualities. Therefore, chewing tobacco is not covered by food additive.

¶130

Section 41 of FSS Act deals with powers of search, seizure, investigation, prosecution and procedure thereto and it is appropriate to extract the same:

¶131

"41, Power of seqrch, seizure, inoestigation, prosecution and procedure thereof- (7) Notwithstanding angthing co,ata.ined in sub-section⁽²⁾ of Section 31, the Food Safetg OlJicer mag se(Irch ang place, seize ang article of food or^qdulterant, if there is a^reo,sonable doubt^qbout them being involved ln commission of ang olfence relating to food and shall thereaJter inlorm the deslgnated officer of the rrctlons taken bg him ln writing:

¶132

Proalded thqt no search shall be deemed to be irregular bg reason onlg of the fact that witnesses for the search are not i'lhq.bitants of the localitg in which the place searched is situated.

¶133

(2) Save as in this Act othe"uise expresslg provided, prouisions of the Code of Crimi^al Procedure, 1973 relating to search, seizure, summon, investigation^q.nd prosecution, shcll applg, as Jar d.s mag be, to all action taken bg the Food SaJetg Officer under this Act."

¶134

Crlp_373 l_201 8 and hatch MSM. J - l0 -

¶135

According to Section 42 of FSS Act, the Food Safety oflicer shall be responsible for inspection of food business, drawing samples and sending them to Food Analyst for analysis; the Food Analyst after receiving the sample from the Food Safety Officer shall analyse the sample and send the analysis report mentioning method of sampling and analysis within fourteen days to designated officer with a copy to Commissioner of Food Safety; the Designated Officer, after scrutiny of the report of the Food Analyst, shall decide as to q,hether the contravention is punishable rvith imprisonment or fine only and in the case ol contravention punishable with imprisonment, he shall send his recommendations within fourteen days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution. The commissioner of Food Safety shall, if he so deems fit decide, within the period prescribed by the Central Government, as per the gravity of offence, whether the matter be referred to a court of ordinary jurisdiction in case of offences punishable with imprisonment for a term up to three years or a special court in case of offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years where such special court is established and in case no special court is established, such cases shall be tried by a court of ordinary jurisdiction; The Commissioner of Food Safety shall communicate his decision to the Designated officer and the concerned Food Safety Officer who shall Iaunch prosecution before courts of ordinary jurisdiction or Special Court, as the case may be, and such communication shall also be sent to the purchaser if the sample was taken under Section 40 of the Act.

¶136

Crlp_3 73 l_201 8 and batch MSM. J

¶137

¶138

Thus, Section 42 of the FSS Act^laicl doun^{procedureto be} folbwed by the Food Safety Officer^{appointed underthis Act to} investigate and h1e complaint before the competent^courts.

¶139

In view of specilic procedure^prescribed in^{the FSS Act, the} Food Safety Officer alone is^{competentto launch the prosecution} after compliance of the^{procedure contemplated under sub-sections} (2) to (a) oi Section 42 of FSS Act'

¶140

In " Omkar Agencg a, The Food^{SaJetg and Standards} Authoritg of Indla6" the^{Division Bench of High Court of Patna} held that chewing tobacco is^{not a food product as defined under} Section 3 0) of FSS Act.

¶141

The High Court of Madras^{in " J.Anbazhcrgd.nv' The Unionof} Indid'^(referred supra)^{and the HighCourtof Bombayin" Dhariual} Industries Limited, Ghodawat^{Pan MasalaProducts(I) Put. Ltd,} Rajnandini Foods Prtt. Ltd,^{SDD Agencies Put.Ltd.,Hira} Enterprises, Ro;ia:t Industries^{PrivateLimited, MSS Food} Processors o, Stdte of Maharashtrd'^{(referredabove)held that} chewing Tobacco are^{foodproductswithin the definition of food as} delined under Section 3 [)^{of FSSAct and the police are competent} to investigate into the offence^{along with the offence punishable} under LP.C.

¶142

In "Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao^{u. State of Maharashtrd"} an identical issue came up^{for consideration,wherein the Division} Bench of Bombay High Court took^{different view and held that the} Food Safety Officer alone is^{competent to investigateand to file} charge sheet against the^{personswho committedthe offenceunder} the provisions of FSS Act.

¶143

" All{ l0l6 Pall60 - l0l6l-arr Suit (llonr) ll.l

¶144

Crlp_373 l_201 8 and batch MSM, J

¶145

Therefore, late r^judgment in " Ga.nesh Pandurang Jadhao u. State of Maharashtra" (referred above) has to be relied upon for the purpose ol deciding the present cases. Since these two judgments are rendered by the coordinate bench of same High Court and the law laid down in Dhariwal Industries Llmlted's ccrse (referred above) was adverted to and considered, but came to a different conclusion. Moreover, the judgment of High Court of Madras in " J.Anbazhagdn u, The Unlon oJ Indid' (referred supra) is based on the judgment of High Court of Bombay in Dhartwal Industries Llmited's case (referred above).

¶146

In "Joshi u. State of Keralaa,' Kerala High Court held that tobacco and tobacco products are not food as defined under Section 3(i) of FSS Act as it is nor.1 food product as specilied in rcgulation 2.3.4 of the regulations and the tobacco and tobacco products are to be manufactured in accordance r,l,ith the provisions of COTp Act and Rules therein. Food Safety Officer has no right to take action against tobacco and tobacco products by virtue of Government order.

¶147

In another judgment in Jagaallas Tobacco Trad.ers LLp rep. bg lts Partner v. The Deslgnated Officer, ?ood. Safetg & Drags Control Dept. (W.P.No.21 of 2Ol7) the Madras High Court adverted to the various provisions of FSS Act and Food Adulteration Act and concluded that when the petitioner was manufacturing ol fine quality ol tobacco prior i.vithout violating the provisions of lau,, the proceedings against him are to be quashed. The Madras High Court relied on its jlldgment in Manufacture1 M/s.Tejram Dhq.ram Paul, Maurmandi, Bhatinda District punjab and q.nother v. The

¶148

'toB crt t.t :rsq

¶149

Crlp_3731 201 8 and batch MSM, J

¶150

13 -

¶151

Food Safetg Inspector, Arnbasamudrcrm^{(Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5505of} 2015 decided on 27.O4.2015)^{wherein it was held that tobacco shall} not be used as ingredients in any^{food products,as it does not come} within the purview of the food^product, the^{FSS Act has no} application and that the manufacturer of^{gutka and pan masala} cannot be proceeded under the^{FSS Act as Tobacco covered under} the COTP Act.

¶152

Similarly in M/s.Vaipugalgilai^{UrpathigalargalMatrum} Vlrpanalgalargal Nala Sangam u. The^{Commissionerof Food} SaJetg (W.P.(MD) No.103 19 of 2Ol7l^{an identical question whether} chewing tobacco manufactures comes^{within the purview of FSS Act} and the Food Safety Officer is competent to^{investigate and to lile} cherrge sheet. It u,as held that^{cherving tobaccois covered by COTP} Act and Food Safety Officer is not an authority^{to interfere with the} business of the petitioner.

¶153

One of the contentions raised bv the learned^Public Prosecutor is that when the^petitioner/ accused allegedly^committed the offences both under FSS Act and I.P.C.,^police can^investigate into the offences punishable under the^provisions of I.P.C. and^FSS Act.

¶154

In view of Section 155 (4) of Cr.P.C., no doubt,^{police are} competent to investigate into the offences when the accused committed both cognizable and non-cognizable offences. Section 155 (4) of Cr.P.C. reads thus:

¶155

Crlp_373 l_201 8 and batch MSM, J

¶156

I.1 -

¶157

"section^{155 (4) of Cr.P.C.:}

¶158

Where a case relates to t\'o^{or more offences of u'hich at least oneis} cognizable, the case shall be^{deemed to be acognizablecase,} notwithstanding that tlle^{otheroffences are non-cognizable."}

¶159

But the FSS Act is a different enactment,^{powerwas conferred} only on Food Safety officer to investigate^{into offence.Though police} are competent to investigate into the offences^{punishableunder} I.P.C., they cannot investigate into the offence^punishable under the provisions of FSS Act in view of the power conferred on Food Safety Officer and the procedure for investigation is totally distinct from the investigation prescribed for the offence punishable under I.P.C. When the police did not conduct investigation as specilied in the provisions of FSS Act, the investigation done by the police is vitiated due to non-compliance of mandatory procedure prescribed under FSS Act. Thereforc, on this ground the contention of the Public Prosecutor cannot be uphcld.

¶160

ln view of the law declared bv various Courts relerred supra, the police cannot take cognizance of the offence, to investigate into and to file charge sheet against the petitioners for the oflence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) of FSS Act, as they were not empowered under the FSS Act to launch the prosecution, but only Food Safety Officer appointed by the Government alone is competent to launch prosecution for those two offences. This view is supported by the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in M/s.Pepsico India Holdings (Prrt) Ltd. case referred supra and the Judgment ol Patna High Court in " Dharmendra Kumar @ Ro,Ja v. The State of Bihare".

¶161

o crl.w.P.No. I l9 of 20 l6

¶162

Crlp_373 l_20 I 8 and batch MSM, J

¶163

15 -

¶164

The Inspector of Police,^{Ichapuram and Sub-Inspector of} Police, Kanchili, without any authority^{launchedthe prosecution} against the petitioners in C.C.Nos.159^{and 16O of 2016on the fiie of} Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ichapuram,^{therefore,the} proceedings under Sections 54 read with 59 of FSS Act are liable^to be quashed on the sole ground. The^{point is answered accordingly.} POINTNo.2:

¶165

The other contention of the counsel for the^petitioners is^that the allegations made in the complaint/ charge sheet, if accepted on its face value, would not constitute any offence punishable under Sections 27O and 273 ol l.P.C. The offence under Section 270 is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both and the offence under Section 273 l.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.

¶166

The offence punishable under Section 27O l.P.C. is cognizable whereas the offence punishable under Section 273 is noncognizable. But when the police received information about the commission of both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the police can investigate into both the offences in view of Section 155 (a) Cr.P.C. Therefore, investigation done by the lnspector and SubInspector of Police in both the Calendar Cases is in accordance with Section 155(a) Cr,P.C. and therefore the Inspector of Police or SubInspector of Police are competent to investrgate into the offence punishable under Sections 27O and 2731.P.C.

¶167

Section 27O of LP.C. deals with committing any act with the knowledge or reason to believe that such act is likely to spread any

¶168

Crlp_373 l_201 8 and batch MSM, J -16-

¶169

infection or any disease, dangerous^{to life, but the act done by the} petitioners is only transportation of Pan^{Masala,Khainiand} chew'ing tobacco in different^vehicles.

¶170

Therefore, transportation of Pan Masala, khaini and chewing tobacco would not spread infection or any disease^{dangerousto life.} To constitute an offence punishable under Section 270 I.P.C., the petitioner must have done an act which spreads infection of any disease dangerous to human 1ife. The charge sheet and the statements recorded by the police during investigation does not disclose that the said transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco would spread infection or any disease dangerous to any human life.

¶171

According to the West's legal thesaurus/ dictionary, the word 'infect' means contaminate, corrupt, pollute, imbue, impress, animate. The word 'disease' means deviation from the healthy or normal condition of any of the functions or tissues of the body (occupational disease), sickness, infirmity, disorder, illness, affliction, weakness, distemper, ill health, ailment, defect, handicap, disability, breakdou.n, malad,y, abnormality, plague, complaint derangement, attack, discomfort, delicate constitution, delicate condition, debility, suffering, malaise, nausea, pathologl, frailtv, attack, cancer, cholera, virus, "bug", syndrome.

¶172

According to Section 33 of I.P.C., the word 'act' denotes as well a series of acts as a single act; the word bmission' denotes as well a serious of omissions as a single omission. Thus, it means, anything done by any of the persons. Transportation of Khaini, Pan Masala or chewing tobacco itself would not spread any infection or disease and if the khaini is chewed, it may cause danger to health of any individual, but transportation will not spread any infection or

¶173

Crlp_373 1_201 8 and batch MSM, J

¶174

-17-

¶175

disease dangerous to health.^{Therefore,the allegations made in the} complaint i.e. transportation^{of chewing tobacco or Khaini or Pan} Masala also do not constitute^{an offence punishableunderSection} 27O of l.P.C.

¶176

The other offence^{allegedlycommittedby the petitionersis} punishable under Section^{273 l.P.C. whichdealsrvith punishment} for sale, offers or^{exposes for sale foodor any article whichhasbeen} rendered or has^{becomenoxious. The word 'noxious' is not defined} in t.P.C. As^{per the dictionarymeaning,noxious means harmful'} deleterious,^{injurious,poisonous'}

¶177

Therefore, the^{sale or offers or exposes for sale of Pan Masala} chewing tobacco or^{khaini are the prohibited products underthe} COTP Act, 20O3. 'Tvansportatlon'^{of such noxious food is not} includedintheoffencepunishableunderSection2T3I'P'C''only few acts were^{included i.e', sale of noxious food or drink is an} offence.

¶178

Thus the^{allegations made in the charge sheet coupled with} the statements^{recorded by the police duringinvestigation under} Scction 161^{(3) Cr.P'C do not disclose ingredientsto constitutean} offence^{punishable under Sectio n273 l'P CHou'ever'itis} consistent^{view of the prosecution from the beginning that these} petitioners^{were found transportingPan Masala'khainiand chewing} tobacco in^{the differentvehiclesreferred supra'but' transportation} of noxious^{food viz', khaini and chewing tobacco is not includedin} the offence^{punishableunder Section 273 1'P'C'ManufacturingPan} Masala^{is notincluded inSection 273 ofI'P'C' 'hence'} manufacturing^{of Pan Masalais not an offence since it is not a} noxious^food.

¶179

Crlp_3731_2018 and batch MSM, J

¶180

18 -

¶181

Therefore, I find no pima facie rr,ateriai against the petitioners to proceed against them lor the offence punishable under Section 273 I.P.C. accepting the allegations made in the charge sheets and the statements recorded by the police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and F.l.Rs. issued against the petitioners.

¶182

The scope of Section 482 of Cr.p.C lr.as time and again discussed in catena of perspective pronouncements of the Apex Court and in a Constitutional Bench judgment of the Apex Court in " State o;f Haryana a. BhaJan !allo,,' seven guidelines were laid down and they are as under:

¶183

(a) Where the o'llegatiorrs mad.e ln the Flrst Informatlon Report or the complqlnt, even lf theg are taken qt thelr face ualue and, accepted ln their entlretg d.o not primq. fo.cle constitute ang o;ffence or mq.ke out a cdse q.gq.inst the accused;

¶184

(b) Where the allegations in the First Information Report o.ad other mq.teria.ls, if ang, olccompclnging the F.I.R, do not disclose a cognizable offence, justfuing an investigation bg police olfiicers uader Section

¶185

156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate withln the purvlew of Section lSS(2) of the Code;

¶186

(c) Where the uncontrouer-ted. o.llegcltions made in the FIR or 'complaint and. the evidence collected in support of the same d.o not d.isclose the commission of ang offence and mq.ke out a cq.se o:go;inst the accused;

¶187

(d) Where the allegations in the FIR d.o not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute onlg a noncognizable offence, no inaes Pollceof,icerwrthoutr^'::1::*:r':'il:::::: contemplqted. und.er Section lSS(2) of the Code;

¶188

1992 Supp. (t) SCC lt5

¶189

Crlp_3731 2018 and batch MSM. J

¶190

19 -

¶191

(e) Where the allegations md.de in the^{FIR or} complaint are so^qbsurd and inherentlg^improbable on the basis of whic}l. no^{prudentperson crrnever} reach a^just conclusion thdt there is sulficient ground. for proceeding against the accused;

¶192

A^{Wherethere is an expresslegq.l bqr engrdlted in} any of the provisions oJ the Code or the^concernedAct (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted/ to the institution^{dnd continudnceof the Proceedings} and/or uthere^{there is aspeciJic Prouision in the} Code or the^{concernedAct, prouidlngefficacious} red.ress for the^{grievance oJ the aggrieued Partg;}

¶193

(g) Where a criminal^{proceeding ismanifestlg} qttended with mataJlde and/or where the^proceeding is "n(l.liclouslg instituted^{withan ulteriormotiue} for wreaking vengednce on the^{qccuseddnd wlth a uiew} to splte hlm due to^priuqte and Persona.l^{gt'udge. In} the inst(:,nt cq.se, the d.llegqtions^{mdde inthe} complaint, do clearlg constitute^{a cognizableoflence} justiJication and this case does not cdll Jor the exercise of extraordinary or inherent^{powers of the} High Court to quash the -tr'.I.R. ltsel/,

¶194

In view of the guidelines laid dou'n by the^Apex Courtⁱⁿ " Str::te of Harydna u. Bhaldn f,af' (referred supra), the^police are incompetent to take cognizance of the offences^{punishable under} Sections 54 and 59(1) of FSS Act, investigating into the offence along with the other offences under the^provisions of I.P.C. and filing charge sheet is a grave illegality, as the Food Safety Officer alone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet following the Rules laid down under Sections 41 and 42 of FSS Act and the Judgments of the Allahabad High Court and Patna High Court are clear that the police are not competent to investigate and to file charge sheet.

¶195

Therefore, in view of the law declared in various^judgments referred supra, chewing tobacco and khaini are not the food within

¶196

Crlp-373 1_20 I 8 and batch MSM, J

¶197

-20-

¶198

the definition of Section 3fi) of FSS Act and^{the manufacture,sale or} exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is^governed by the^provisionsof COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the^provisions of IPC.

¶199

As discussed in the earlier paragraphs, the respondents are incompetent to investigate the offence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) of FSS Act and the allegations in the charge sheet coupled ',vith the statements^{does not disclose the commission of the offence} punishable under Section 273 of I.P.C. since transportation of noxious food is not included under Section 273 of I.P.C. The act done by the petitioners i.e. transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco though dangerous to human life, it would not spread or infect or cause any disease on account of transportation and if those products are consumed by human being, it would certainly cause damage to the health. Therefore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco is not by itself is not an offence under Section 270 of I.P.C. and it would fall within Section 27O of LP.C.

¶200

In Criminal Petition Nos.3765, 37 66 and 6755 of 2018 (sl.Nos.3, 4 and 13) police registered case for the offence punishable under Section 7 (l) (2) (3) (5) and Section 26 of COTP Act, wherein the accused '"r,ere found manufacturing Pan Masala. But Pan Masala is not a Tobacco product to fall within the purview of coTP Act. Therefore, the provisions of COTP Act have no application, therebl, registration of crime for violation of Sections 7 (11 (2) (3) (S) and Section 26 of COTP Act is an illegality.

¶201

In Criminal Petition Nos.6811 ol 6816 of 2018 (Sl.No.15 and 16) police registered case for the offence punishable under Section 20 (21 read with 7 (2) of COTP Act since the accused found transporting Pan Masala and Tobacco.

¶202

Crlp_373 1_201 ll and batch MSM. J

¶203

-2t -

¶204

According to Section^{7 (2) of COTP Act, no person shall carry} on trade or commerce in^{cigarettes or any othertobacco products} unless every package of cigarettes or^{anv othcr tobacco products} sold, supplied or distributed by him^{bears thereon,or in its label,} the specified warning.

¶205

Section 7 (3) of COTP^{Act says that no personshall import} cigarettes or any other^{Tobacco products for distribution or supply} for a valuable consideration or for^{sale in Indiaunlessevery package} of cigarettes, or any other^{Tobacco productsso imported by him} bears thereon, or on its label, the^{specifiedwarning.Since the} petitioners are transporting Tobacco^{products without any label,it} would fall within the provisions of Section^{7 (3) of COTP Act.}

¶206

In Criminal Petition Nos.7081, 8216 and 7851 of²⁰¹⁸ (sl.Nos.20, 2l and 22), police registered a case against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 20 and^{22 of} COTP Act. Since the^petitioners are found^{manufacturingand} transportation of Tobacco^products without any^{label prescribed by} the Act is violation of Section 7⁽¹⁾ and 7⁽³⁾ of COTP Act,^whichis punishable under Section 20 of the Act. Section 5 of COTP Act, deals with prohibition of advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products, which is punishable under Section 22 ol COTP Act, but no such allegation is found in the entire record at attract the offence punishable under Section 22 of COTP Act.

¶207

The material on record in Crime Nos.235 of 2018^of Patancheru Police Station, Crime No.84 of 2018 of Modugula^Police Station and in C.C.Nos. 159 and 160 of 2016^{on the file of Judicial} Magistrate of First Class at lchapuram^prtma facie^disclosed commission of offence punishable under^{Section20 (2) read with 7}

¶208

Crlp_373 I 201 8 and hatch MSM, J

¶209

-22-

¶210

(2, 20 and Section 22 of COTP Act, hence the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime Nos.235 of 20 18 of Patancheru police Station, Crime No.84 of 2018 of Modugula Police Station and in C.C.Nos.lS9 and 16O of 2076 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ichapuram for the offences punishable under the provisions of COTP Act cannot be quashed.

¶211

In the result, these criminal petition Nos. 3731, 3634,3265, 3766, 5966, 5967, 5968, 5969, 5970, 597t, 5972, 6754, 6755, 6758, 6859, 6954 and 6955 of 2018 are allowed. The proceedings (details of crime numbers are given in the table referred supra) against the petitioners herein are hereby quashed. No costs.

¶212

Criminal Petitions Nos. 681 1, 6816, ZO8l, 8216 and 7851 of 2018, are partlv allow,ed. The proceedings against the petitioners in Crime Nos.235 of 20 18 of Patancheru police Station, Crime No.g4 of 2O18 of Modugula Police Station and in C.C.Nos. 159 and 160 of 20 16 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ichapuram for the offences punishable under Indian penal Code and FSS Act are only hereby quashed while permitting to proceed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under the provisions of COTp Act. No costs.

¶213

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these criminal petitions shall stand closed.

¶214

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶215

27.O8.2018 Ksp

Abdul Azher v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Azher v. The State of Telangana

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

Smt.D.Asha Latha Vs The State of telangana

Syed Mustafa Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Seshagiri Rao and another Vs State of Telangana

Kowkuntla Varalaxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Zakir Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Mupparapu Ngaraju Vs The State of Telangana and Another