Allowed

K Ashok Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Mar 2021CRLP/2401/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A prosecution concerning allegedly illegal tobacco sales was quashed against the petitioner under Sections 188 and 336 IPC and Section 20(2) COTP Act. The court also directed return of the seized property after identification and verification of ownership.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.19 of 2021 quashed against the petitioner alone; seized property ordered returned upon identification and ownership verification under acknowledgment.

K Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR.THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

cRt INA ETI ON o 't oF 21

¶6

Between:

¶7

ALONG WITH I.A.N o.20 F 2021

¶8

K. Ashok Kumar, S/o K. Babu Rao,

¶9

AND

¶10

.,.PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

rhroush S.H.o. Shahinayathsunj potice Station, rep. by rhe I|; :",i1?S:J;langana,

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petitioi, the High corrt mav oe preas"o to call for the records relating to case in crime.No.19 of-2021 on tne fite 'oi p.s. -above shahinayathgunj, Hyderabad District, and quash the proceedings in thl Crime.No.19 of 2021 .

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 oF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the verified^petition, the High court may ne fiteJsea to dispense *ir.',-tiiling or th" certified copv of the crime.No.lg ot 2(i21 on the fire of p.S. shrrrinuvJtgrnj, Hyderabad District.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the accompanying criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the police to return the material seized in crime.No.19 of 2021 on the file of p.s. Shahinayathgunj, Hyderabad District to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2401 OF 2021

¶21

ALONG WITH I.A. No.2 OF 2021

¶22

COMMON ORDER (oRAL):

¶23

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner herein seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.l9 of 2021 pending on the fi1e of the Station House Officer, Shahinayathgunj police Station, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is accused in the said Calendar Case. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 188 and 336 ofthe lndian penal Code, 1g60, and Section 20(2) of The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco products (prohibition of Adverlisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short ,COTp Act,). The petitioner also filed I.A. No.2 of 2021 seeking retum of tobacco material seized in the crime.

¶24

2' Heard Sri Gajanand chakravarthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and.learned Assistant public prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Sub-Inspector of police is not having authority to lodge the present complaint, and the Shahinayathgunj police Station, is not having power to register a case in crime No. 1 g of 2021 for the offences under Sections 188 and 336 of IpC and Section 20 (2) of the COTp Act. He

,...."&e*',-.

would further submit that the allegation against the petitioner is that he is selling and supply the tobacco products to the customers illegally in order to gain wrongful profits. Thus, the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences. The leamed counsel by referring to the provisions of COTP Act, including 20 (2), would submit that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not attract the ingredients of the aforesaid provisions and, therefore, the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. In support of the same, he has placed reliance on the judgment in Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telanganar rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States ofTelangana and Andhra pradesh. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor has tried to distinguish the principle laid down in the said judgment to the facts of the present case.

¶30

Perused the judgment in Chidurala Shyamsubder (supra), wherein a leamed single Judge of the High Court following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, held that the police are incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishabie under Sections 54 and 59 ( 1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short 'FSS Act'), and investigating into the offences along with other offences under the provisions ofthe lndian Penal Code, 1860. It was furlher held that filing charge sheet is a grave illegality, as the Food Safety Officer alone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet following the

¶31

'.^{crl.P. No.373lof 2018 &batch, decidedon27.08.2018} t. 1992 supp. (l) sCC 335

¶32

Rules laid^{down under Sections 41 and 42 of FSS Act' In the present} case, the^{police have registeredthe crime for the offencesunder} Sections 188^{and 336 of IPC. Therefore, the said proceedings in} CrimeNo.l9of2O2l.againstthepetitionershereinarecontrarytothe principle laid down^{in ChiduralaShyamsubder (Supra)and'} therefore, the^{sameare liable to be quashed'}

¶33

As far as^{Section 20 (2) of the COTP Act is concemed'as} stated above,^{the allegations againstthe petitionerare that he is selling} and supplying the^{tobacco productsto the customersillegally in order} to gain wrongful^{profits. In view of the saidallegation, it is apt to} refer to Section^{20 (2) of the COTP Act for better appreciation of the} case and to decide^{the issue in question,andthe same is as under:}

¶34

"20. Punishment^{for failure togive specified} warning and nicotine^{and tar contents} -

¶35

(1) Any person who^{produces or manufacturescigarettes} or tobacco^{products,which do not contain, either on the} package or on their tabel, the specified^{warningandthe} nicotine and tar contents,^{shall in the case of first} conviction be^{punishablewith imprisonmentlor a term} which may extend to two^years, or^{with fine which may} extend to five thousand rupees! or with both,^andtbrthe second or subsequent conviction, with^{imprisonmentfor a} term which may extend to five^years and with fine^which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

¶36

(2)........"

¶37

Thus, Section 20 of COTP Act deals^{with pun'shmentfor} failure to give specified waming and nicotine and tar contents. As stated above, the allegation against the petitioner herein^{is that he}

¶38

¶39

purchase the tobacco products and se, them to cusromers at higher prices to gain wrongful profits. The petitioner is neither trader nor supplier/distributor of cigarettes or any other tobacco products. There is no allegation in the charge sheet against the petitioner that he is carrying on trade or commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products. In view of the same, the contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of Section 20 (2) of the COTp Act. In the entire complaint, there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain rabers as well as statutory waming. Therefore, registering the crime for the said offence against the petitioner is also contrary to Section 20 (2) ot COTP Act. Thus, the offence under Section - ZO (2) of COTp Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioner.

¶40

In view of the above discussion, the present criminal petition is allowed, and the proceedings in Crime No.19 of 2021 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Shahinayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein - accused alone.

¶41

I.A. No.2 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner for return of the material seized in the crime. Since the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed against the petitioners in Crime No.19 of 2021, the Station House Officer, Shahinayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad, is directed to retum the seized property to the petitioner on proper

¶42

¶43

identification^{and verificationof ownership of the same under due}

¶44

acknowledgment'^{Accordingly'I'A' No'2of 2020 is closed'}

¶45

As a seque^{1 thereto, miscellaneouspetitions' if any' pending in}

¶46

the criminal Petition,^{stand closed.}

¶47

Sdi-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY// l,r-."

SECTION OFFICER

To 1. The xvl Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate' Hyderaba-d. (along with a,copy ' oi ir.." .or.on order Jated 2710812018 in crl.P.No.3731 0f 2018 and batch)

¶52

ih; atat6; iorse^{otriiei,Shahinavathgunj Police Sta-tion Hy{egbad} ^(3lo^no - ;ih ; aa.ptof the common order daled lzfietZOfi in Crl.P.No.3731 of 2018 and batch)

¶53

e. i*o 6Cs to the^{public Prosecutor (TG),HighCourt for the State of Telangana,} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶54

a. Oire CC to Sri Gdjanand^{Chakravarthi, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶55

Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:23103/2021

ORDER

CRLP.No.2401 ol 2021 ALONG WlrH l.A. NO.2 0F²⁰²¹

¶61

l FiE SlA,
3 02 itji{ 202
.'il
- ;;i'

¶62

ALLOWING THE CRL.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION AND CLOSING THE IA NO,2 OF 2021

¶63

% 06

¶64

¶65

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SAI'YANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos,3731 3634 3765 3766 5966 5967 5968 5969 5970 5977 5972 6754 6755 675A 6811 6816 6859.69s4 6955,7081 8216 and 78 51 of2O18

¶66

COMMON O RDER

¶67

These criminal petitions are filed under Section 4g2 ol Crimrnal 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, nature ol oflence are mentioned in the table given below.

¶68

SI, No	Crl.P.No	Crime Number	Accused Number	Offences allegedly committed	Nature olfence ol
l	3731of201E	3,1of 2018of Manakondur PoliceStation	A.I	u/ s328, 27O and 273 of I.P.C.	Transportation ofPanMasala andTobacco Products
2	3634of 2018	26 of2018of NakkapaUi PoliceStation	A.2and A.3	uls272, 273, 328and 120-Bof I,P.C,	Transportation ofKhaini Packets
3	3765 of 2018	509of2017 ofNacharam PoliceStation	A.1	uls272, 273,420, 188ofI.P.C. andSection 7(1)(2)(3) (51and26 of Cigarettes and OtherTobacco Products {Prohibitlon^of Advertisement and Reguialion ofTrade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act,2003(tot short "COTP	Manulacruring Pan Masala.
	3766 of 2018	509of2017 ofNacharam PoliceStation	A,.2	u/s 272, 273, 420, 188ofI.P.C. andSection 7(1){2)⁽³⁾ (5)and26of COTPAct, 2003	Manufacturing Pan Masala.
5	5966 o12018	215oI2018 olNacharam PoliceStation	A,I	U/S 272, I,P,C 188, 273ot	Transportation ofPanMasala

¶69

Crlp_3731_201^{8 and batch} MSM. J

¶70

¶71

6	5967ol2Al8	215ol2018 ofNacharam PoliceStation	A.2		u/s 188, 272,273oi I,P.C.	Transportation ofPanMasala
7	5968ol2018	215ol2018 ofNacharam PoliceStation	A,3		u/s i88, 272,273ol I.P.C.	Transportation ofPanMasala
8	5969 of2018	215oi2018 oINacharam PoliceStation			u/s 188, 272,273ol I.P.C.	Transportation ofPanMasala
9	5970 of 2018	215of2018 ofNacharam PoliceStation	A.5		u/s 188, 272,273of l.P.c.	Transportation ofPan Masala
10	5971of2018	372ol2018 ofMedipally PoliceStation	A.1		u/s 188, 272, 273 readwith34 of I.P.C.	Manufacturing andpackiltgof PanMasala
11	5972 of2Ol8	372af20tg ofMedipally PoiiceStation	A,2		u/s 188, 272, 273 readwith34 ofl.P.C.	Manufacturing andpackingof PanMasala
12	6754 of2OlB	13oI2018 of Golkonda Police.Station	A.3		u/s 273, 188ofLP.C. andSectiorL 59(i)FSSAct	Saleof Masala Tobacco Products lzarda) Pan and
13	6755of2018	5O9ol2017 ofNacharam PoliceStation	A.3	and	u/s 272, 273, 420, 188of1.P.C. andSection 7(1){2)(3) (5)and26of COTPAct, 2003	Manufacturing Pan Masala,
1.1	6758oi20L8	6Iof2017 of Karimnagar PoliceStation	A.3		u/s 274, 273and328 ofI.P.C.	Dealingwith Tobacco products
15	6311 o12018	235of2018 of PatancherLr PoliceStation	A.3		u/s 270, 273olI.P.C Section20(2) readwith7 (2)ofCOTP Act2003	Transportation ofPanMasala andTobacco
16	6816 of2018	235ot2418 of Patancheru PoliceStation	A.1 4.2	and	, u/s 27a, 273olLP.C. Section20(2) readwith7 (2)ofCOTP Act2003	Transportation olPanMasala andTobacco
I7	6859 of 2018	26ol2018 of Nakkapalli PoliceStation	A.1		, U/S 171 120 IPC 328, Bof	Transportation of Khaini Packets
1B	6954 of 2018	231 of2OlB of Visaldlapatiam IV Town PoiiceStation	A.1 4.4	to	.. u/s 328, 273, 188 readwith34 ofI.P,C,and u/ss9,s8 and 63oI FSSAt	Transportation of Khaini Packets
L9	6955 o12018	53of2018ol Nakkapalli PoliceStation	A.1		U/S273ol I.P.C.and u/s1s6(3) ofCr.P,C. c	Transportation of Gutka Packets

¶72

Crlp_373I _2Ol8 and barch 3- MSM, J

¶73

2A 708 1 of 2A18 of the file c.c 2016 No. I60onof 4.44,2 to U/S of I.P.C.270, Manufa cturing
Judicial u/s 54 and Products.
59 of FSS Act
Magistrate of
and Section
First Class at
2t B2 i6 of 2 018 the file of Ichac .C.No.1592016 ram onof A.3A.2 and 273 ActU20 /s of of I.p.C.COTp27o, of TransportationTobacco
U/S 54 and products.
Judicial
59 of FSS Act
Magistrate of and Section
First Class at 20 ol COTp
Icha uram
Act
22 7851 of 2018 84 of 2 018 of A.1 and U/S 273 ot Transportation
Modugula 4,2 L P.C, and of Ra.ja Kaini
Police Station under
Section 22
read with 5
of COTP Act

¶74

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

¶75

The petitioners liled these criminal petitions under Section 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 police during investigation under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. does not disclose the commission of offence punishable under Sections 27O and 273 of l.P.C, or any other offences referred in column No.4 of the Table referred supra. When the charge sheets^{and F.l.Rs do} nol 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 agajnst the^petitioners.

¶76

During hearing, Sri P.Vikram and R.Siva Sai Swaroop,^learned counsel lor the petitioners contendecl that though khaini^{is a} Tobacco product, it would not fa1l u,ithin the definition^{of Section} 3(j) of the FSS Act. Therefore, the^police are^{incompetentto} investigate into and file charge sheet, totally^{contraveningthe}

¶77

Crlp 3?31^2018andbxtch ]\4SM.^J

¶78

-4-

¶79

procedure^{prescribedunder the provisionsof FSS ActUnder the} FSS Act,^{Food Safety Officer aloneis competentto draw samples} and investigate^{into Therefore' the policelacks inherent jurisdiction} to investigate^{into the offencesOn this ground alone' the} proceedings against^{the petitionersfor the offences punishable} under Sections^{54 and 59(1) FSS Act are liable to be quashed} Similarly, registration^{of crimes against the petitionersis also an} illegality since^{Iocal police are not competent to investigate into the} offences.

¶80

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

¶81

Learned counsei for the petitioners relied on the^judgment of High Court of Patna rendered rn " Omkar Agencg o. The Food Safetg and Standard.s Authoritg of Indiat" in support of their contentions.

¶82

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State for the States of Andhia 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 aod 273 of I.P.C., so also under Sections 54 and 59(1) FSS Act and prayed to dismiss the criminal

¶83

L AIR 2016 part 60

¶84

Crtrp _37 3 1 _20 I g and barch -sMSM,J

¶85

petitions. Similarly, manufacturing of pan Masala is also contravention ol provisions of IISS Acr.

¶86

Learned public prosecutor for the State mainly contended thar Chewing Tobacco is a lood product in view of comprehensive delinition of food under Section 3 [) of FSS Acr since it is wicrer than the delinition of food under Food Aclulteration Act and placed reliance on the judgment of High court of Bombay rendered in " Dhariwal Industrles Limlted, Ghodawat pan Masala prod.ucts (I) Pvt, Ltd, Rajnandini Food.s put. Ltd, SDD Agenctes put.Ltd., Htra Enterprises, Rajat lrldustries priaate Lrmtted., MSS Food Processors a, State of Maharashtra2, and another judgment of High Court ol Madras rendered in,,J.Anbazhagan u. The Union of India3"

¶87

Considering rival contentions, perusing the materiai available on record, the poinrs that arise for consideration are as foliows:

¶88

1. Whether the respondent/ Sub.Inspector oJ police, is competent to inuestigdte into the ofJence punlshable under Sections 54 and 59/Ji o/ FSS Act?

¶89

1. Whether the petitioners in atll the petitions are found committing dng act with malicious intention, with knousledge and reason to belieue that such aet likelg to spread the infection oJ .ang disease dangerous to life? And ushether the petitioners selling or ofJering or exposing for sale as Jood or drink, dng drticle which has been rendered or has become noxious or is in d stdte unJit Jor Jood or drink or reclson to belieue thd.t the same is noxious as food or drink? If so, are theg liable to be proceeded for the ofJence^punishable under Sections 27O and 273 IPC.?

¶90

t r-.lu,s (gov)-zo t z-9"29 r 20I 8 SCC online Mad l2i I

¶91

Crlp^{3731-2018atrclbatcl.r} MSlv'I'^J

¶92

¶93

POI NT^No7.

¶94

The first^{and foremost contention raisedbeforethis Courtis} that the^respondents -^{Sub'lnspector of Policeand the Inspector of} Police are not^{competent to investigate into the offence punishable} under Sections^{54 and 59(1) of FSS Act'}

¶95

"section^{54 ;, ,.ssAct deals with Pend'ltg forJood} contqlning extrqneous^{mo:ter ' Anyperson whether bg himself} or bg ang other^{personoihis'beha{manufacturesfor sale or} stotes or sells or distributes^{or imPorts ang articleof food Jor} humc..a consumption contq.inir:'g^{extrqneous matter, shdll be} tiqble to a penaltg uhlch^mqg extend^{to one lokh ruPees.}

¶96

Section 59(i) o/ F'SS ,4ct deols^{withpunishment} for unsafe food,^- ang person who, whether bg himself^{or bg ang} other person on his behalf, manufq.ctures lor sale or ,tores or sells or distributes or imports^qngqrticle of Jood for human consumption which is unsqJe, shdll be punishable,-

¶97

(l) where such fdilure or contravention does not result in injury."

¶98

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

¶99

uFood means a4g substance, whether processed, partlallg. processed. or uipioiested., which is intended. for human consurii)ti'n qnd, includes prlmqry food, to the extend, deJlned in clause (ZK) geneticallg moilified or engineered Jood or food containing such ingledients, inna.nt food., po,ckc.ged drinking water, q,lcoholic drink, chewing gum, o.nd. ang substq.nce, lncluding u,ater used into the food d.uring its manuJacture, preparation or treatment but d.oes not include ang a.nimal Jeed, liue anima.la unless they are prepared. or processed for placing on the mq.rket for human consumption, plants prior to hdrvesting, dtugs and. med.icir.c.l prod.ucts, cosrn99tics, na.rcotic o r p sy c hotropic substances..

¶100

Provided that the Centrq.l Gouernment mq.g d.eclq.re, bg noti.fication in the OlJiciat Gazette, q.n! other q.rticle a.s food lor^{the purposes} oJf this Act haulng regard,s to its use, nd.ture, substdrtce or quautg;',

¶101

Crlp_3 73 i_20 J 8 and harch MSM, J

¶102

¶103

Though the word ,food, as defined under section 3[) ol FSS Act is inclusive, the chewing tobacco was not incruded in section 3[) of FSS Act. Manufacturing or transportation of pan Masala is not an offence. ln^,,Godawat pan Mass.la products Lp, Ltd.. and o.nother u/s. Union of Ind.idt, the Apex Court analyzed the definition of^,food"' under Section 2(v) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, 195S as under:

¶104

" There is merit in the contentions of the appellants. Rule 3 of the Maharashtra preoention oJ Food. Adulterdtion Rules, 1962 and. the correspond.ing rule in the God., Daman and Diu prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1982 suggest that the potaer giuen to the Food lHealth) Authoritg is onlg a pro tem power to deal wtth dn emergent situation, such cs outbreak of ang infectious disease, which mag be due to ang ar-ticle of food, Certainlg, such pouer uould includ.e the power to ban '!or the time being" the sale oJ such injurious d.rticles of food.. Hence, there is a corresponding prouision in Section 7(iu) of the Act. In other words, uhen a contingencg enoisaged. by Rule 3, or one similar thereto, arises and it becomes necessary for FHA to take immed.iate steps, FHA is empowered to prohlbit^tfor the time being" the injurious article concerned and. to take ang appropriate step "in the interest of public health".

¶105

On the collocation of the statutory^prouisions, it is not possib le to accept the stdtes' contention that Section 7(iv) is an independent source of^{pottteror thdt} the 1964 d.mendment to Section Tliu) had the^{elJect oJ} empowering FHA to prohibit the sale oJ ang article "in the interest of public health", This conclusion is also supported bg its legislatiue history.

¶106

It was improper that despitc the 1964 amendment in Section Tliu), the rules were not coffespondingly updated. Howeuer, going strictlg bg the^{State Rules,} uhich actuallg determine the d<.tent of the^{power of}

¶107

'(2001)⁷ scc⁶⁸

¶108

crip-3⁷³¹ -20 1 8 "ii3fli:l 8-

¶109

FHA, the^{argument of theStdtes that thesdid} amendment^{r,c.s intended'to giued carte blancheto FHA} cctnnot be^{accepted' The power of the StateFHA'which} is discenible^{und.er Section 2p)@) read with the Stdte} Rules, operates^onlg Jor^{atemporarypeiodd'uring} which an^{emergentsituation exists whlch needs to be} controlled.^{Section 7(iu) does not clothe FHA with the} power to issue a ban^order for^{a longer period'}

¶110

Even assuming^{that gutka and tobacco products} are injuries to^{healtk, the} Pou,er^{of their prohibitionis} onlg uested. with^{the Central Gouernment and not tttith} the Stdte Food^{(Health) Authorities.}

¶111

Again, applging the^{principlesofhd"rmonious} constructlon, it is noi^{possibleto hold tlxat Section7(iu)} is an ind.ependent source of^{pouer,The pouter of the} State under Section 7(iu) of the Act ls^statutory; absolute to the extent proulded. therein, and limited^to the extent indicated bg Section 23(1-A) of the Act."

¶112

The delinition of the word 'food' under Section 3(j) 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 delinition of 'rrbod' under Section 3fi) of FSS Act, but it is a prohibited product under rhe COTP Act, 2003.

¶113

Therefore, the Inspector of Police and the Sub-lnspector of Poiice are incompetent to investigate into the offence punishable under the provisions of FSS Act. Even assuming that chewing tobacco is a food within the definition-provided under Section 3fi) of FSS Act, the Food Safety Officer is empowered to investigate into the offence punishable under the provisions of the FSS Act.

¶114

lo "M/s,Pepslco Ind.id. Hold.lngs (Put) Ltd., and. Another u. State of U.P.s" the Allahabad High Court had an occasion to deal

¶115

5 201l(2) Crimes 250

¶116

CLlp_373 l_201 8 and barch MSM, J 9

¶117

u,ith similar question, extracted the delinition of the word. ,food., under section 3[) of FSS Act, so a]so the word ,food. ad.d.itiue,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 typical 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, preparadon, 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 alfecting 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 .

¶118

Section 4i oi FSS Act deals with powers of search, seizure, investigation, prosecution and procedure thereto and ir is appropriate to extract the same:

¶119

"41,^{Power oJ search,} seizure, lnuestigq.tion, prosecution and procedure thereoJ- (1) Notwithstq,nding angthing contq.ined in sub-section (2) oJ Section 37, the Food Sq.Jetg OfJicer mag search ang place, seize ang artlcle of food or^q.dulterant, tJ there is^q. req.sonq.ble doubt^q.bout them being lnvolved ln commissfon of ang olJence relatlng to food and shr:ll thereafter lnJorm the designated officer of the actlons to.ken bg him in writlng:

¶120

Prouided thqt no seqrch shall be deemed to be irregular bg req.son onlg of the fact that uitnesses for the search are not inhabitq.nts oJ the locdlltg ln whlch the Place sedrched is situdted,

¶121

(2) Sq.ae^qs in this Act otherutise expresslg prouided, provisions of the Code of Crimlnal Procedure, 7973 relqtlng to search, selzure, summon' irutestigation and^{prosecwtion,shall} applg, as far as mag be, to all^{qctiontaken bg theFood} SqJetg OlJicer under this Act,"

¶122

Crlp I731-2018^andbrtcir MSM.^J

¶123

10^-

¶124

42 of^{FSS Act, the Food Safety officer} According^{to Sectlon} inspection^{of food business' drau'ing} shail be^{responslblefor} samples^{and sendingthem to FoodAnalyst for analysis; the Food} Analyst^{after receiving the sampie from the Food Safety Officer shall} analyse^{the sample and sendthe analysisreport mentioningmethod} ol sampling^{and analysis withinfourteen days to designated officer} with a^{copy to Commissioner of Food Safety; the DesignatedOfficer'} alter scrutiny^{of the report of the Food Analyst'shall decide as to} whether^{the contraventionis punishablewith imprisonment or fine} only and^{in thecase ofcontraventionpunishablewilh} imprisonment,^{he shall send his recommendations within fourteen} days to^{theCommissioner ofFood Safety forsanctioning} prosecution. The^{commissioner of Food Saletyshalf if he so deems} fit decide,^{withinthe period prescribed by the CentralGovernment'} as per the^{gravity of offence,v/hetherthe matter be referred to a} court of ordinary^{jurisdiction in caseof offencespunishable with} imprisonment^{for a term up to thtee yearsor a special court in case} of offences^{punishable withimprisonment for a term exceedingthree} years where such^{special court' is establishedand in case no special} court is established,^{such cases shallbe tried by a court of ordinary} jurisdiction; The Commissioner^{of Food Safelvshallcommunicate} his decision to^{the Designated officerand the concernedFood Safety} Officer who shall^{launchprosecution 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.}

¶125

Crlp_373 i-201 g and batch -^ll \4S,1..r

¶126

Thrrs, Section 42 ol the FSS Act laid dou,r,r procedure to be lollou,ed by the Food Safety Olficer appointed under this Act to investigate and file complaint belore the competent courts.

¶127

In vierv of specific procedure prescribed in the FSS Act, the Food Safety Oflicer alone is competent to Iaunch the prosecution after compliance of the procedure contemprated under sub-secrions (2) u g) of Section 42 of FSS Act.

¶128

ln " Omkar Agencg u, The Food, Safetg clnd Standqrds Authoritg of Indi6" the Division Bench of High court of patna held that chewing tobacco is not a food product as defined under Section 3 fi) of FSS Act.

¶129

The High Court of Madras in,,J,Anbazhagan v. The (Jnion oJ Indid' (referted supra) and the High Court of Bombay io,,Dhariual Industries Limited, Ghodawat pa.n Masala products (I) put, Ltd., Rajnandini Foods Ptt. Ltd, SDD Agencies put.Ltd., Hira Enterprises, Rajat Industries Priuate Limited, MSS Food Processors a, Stq.te of Maharashtra' (referred above) held that chewing Tobacco are food products within the definition ol food as dehned under Section 3 (j) of FSS Act and the police are competent to invesLigate into the offence along with the offence punishable under l.P,C.

¶130

ln "Ganesh Pand.urang Jadhao u. Stdte of Maharashtr " 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 investigate and to lile charge sheet against the persons who committed the offence under the provisions of FSS Act.

¶131

6 AIR 2016 Part60

¶132

r 20l6 Law Suit (Bom) 234

¶133

CLlo 37li^{2013 andbatch} MSM.^J

¶134

Therefore,^{later judgment in " Go:neshPandutangJadhao rt'} State of^{Mahdrashtrd'(referred above) has to be reliedupon lor} the^{purpose ofdecidingthe present 645s5 $incethesetwo} j udgments are^{rendered by the coordinatebench of sameHigh} Court and^{the law laid down ioDhariwalIndustriesLi^tt"d'"} case^{(referred above) was adverted to and considered'but came to a} different conclusion.^{Moreover, the judgment of High Court oi} Madras io^{" J'Anbazhaganu, The lJnion of India'(referred supra)} is based on^{the judgment of High Court of Bombayin Dharitual} Industries Limlted's^{case (referred above)'}

¶135

In "Joshi u, Stdte^{qf Keralaa} "^{KeralaHigh Courtheld lhat} tobacco and tobacco^{productsare not food as defined under Section} 3 ii) of FSS Act as it is not^{a food product as specifiedin regulation} 2.3.4 of the regulations and the^{tobaccoand tobacco producls are to} be manufactured in accordance^{with the provisions of COTPAct and} Rules therein. Food Safety Officer has no^{right to take action} against tobacco and tobacco products by virtue of^Government order.

¶136

In another^judgment in Jagauilas Tobacco Traders^{LLP rep,} bg its Parther v" The Designated O;fJicer, Food Safetg & Dntgs 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 of fine quality of tobacco prior without violating the provisions of law, the proceedings against him are to be quashed. The Madras High Court relied on its^judgment in Manufacfitre4 M/s.Tejram Dhardm Paul, Maurmand.| Bhatinda Dtstrict PunJab and another u. The

¶137

t 2aB cr1.L.J,2'tB9

¶138

¶139

Crlp_3731*201 g and barch - 13 _ MS]\4, J

¶140

Food Safetg Inspector, Ambasamud.rq.m (Crl.O.p.(MD) No.S5O5 of 20iS decided on 27,04.2015) 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.

¶141

Similarly in lfls,Vaipugaigilai tlrpathigatargq.l Matrum virpanaigarargar Nata sangam o, The commissioner of Food safetg (w.P.(MD) No.I0319 of 2ot7) arL identical question wherher chewing tobacco manufactures comes within the purview ol FSS Act and the Food Safety Officer is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet. It was held that chewing tobacco is covered by COTp Act and Food Safety Officer is not an authority to interfere with the br-tsiness of Lhe petirioner.

¶142

One of the contentions raised by 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 oflences punishabie under the provisions of l.p.C. and FSS Ac t.

¶143

In view of Section 1SS (4) of Cr.p.C., no doubt, police are competent to investigate into the ol nces when the accused committed both cognizable and non-cognizable olfences. Section 155 (4) of Cr.P.C. reads thus:

¶144

Crlp^{373 I-2018andbatch} MSM.^J

¶145

-14-

¶146

"section^{i55 (4) of Cr'PC"}

¶147

Where^{a case relates to two or more offences of whichat least one is} cognizable,^{thecase shall bedeemed to be acognizablecase'} notwithstanding^{that the other offencesare non-cognizabLe"}

¶148

ButtheFsSActisadifferentenactment,powelwasconferred only on^{FoodSafety officerto investigateinto offence' Thoughpolice} are competent^{to investigate into the offencespunishableunder} l.P.C., they cannot^{investigateinto the offencepunishable underthe} provisions of FSS^{Act in view of the power conferredon Food Safety} Officer and the^{procedurefor investigation is totally distinct from} the investigation^{prescribed for the offence punishableunderI'P'C} When the police did not conduet^{investigation as specified in the} provisions of FSS Act, the investigation done by the^police is^vitiated due to non-compliance of mandatory^{procedure prescribed under} trSS Act. Therefore, on this ground the contention of the Public Prosecutor cannot be upheld.

¶149

In view of the law declared by various Courts referred supra, the police cannot take cognizance of the offence, to investigate into and to file charge sheet against the petitioners lor the offence 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 Olficer appointed by the Government alone is competent to launch prosecution for those two offences. This view is supported by the Judgment ol the Allahabad High Court rn M/s.Pepsico India Holdings (Pvtl Ltd. case referred supra and the Judgment of Patna High Court in^* Dharmend.ra Kumar @ Raja u. The State of Bihare".

¶150

'^{crl.w.p.No.1l9 of 20t6}

¶151

Crlp_373 1_201 8 and batch MSM, J

¶152

15 -

¶153

The Inspector of police, Ichapuram and Sub-lnspector oi Police, Kanchili, without any authorit)r ]aunched the prosecution against the petitioners in C.C,Nos.159 and 160 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate ol First CIass, Ichapuram, therelore, the proceedings under Sections 54 read with 59 of FSS Act are lable ro be quashed on the sole ground. The poirrt is answered accordingly. POINTNo.2:

¶154

The other contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations made in the complaint/charge sheet, il accepted on its face value, would not constitute any offence punishable under Sections 270 and 273 of 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 I.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.

¶155

The offence punishable under Section 27O^{l.P.C.is cognizable} whereas the offence punishable under^{Section 273 isnol-r-} cognrzable. But^{rvhen the policereceived information aboutthe} commission of both cognizable^{and non-cognizable offences,the} police can investigate into both^{the offences in view of Section155} (a) Cr.P.C. Therefore, investigation^{done by the lnspector andSub-} lnspector of Police^{in both the CalendarCases is in accordance with} Section 155(4) Cr.P'C.^{and thereforethe Inspector of Policeor Sub-} Inspector of Police^{are competent to investigateinto the offence} punishable under Sections^{27O and 273|'P'C'}

¶156

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

¶157

201 8^{and batch} Crlp-3731 MSM,.I

¶158

16^-

¶159

infection^{or anydisease, dangerous to life, but the act done by the} petitioners^{is only transportationof Pan Masala' Khaini and} chewing^{tobaccoin different vehicles'}

¶160

Therefore,^{transportationof Pan Masaia, khaini and chewing} tobacco^{wouldnot spread infection or any diseasedangerousto life'} To constitute^{an offencepunishable underSection 270 l'P 'C' ' the} petitioner must^{havedone an act whichspreadsinfectionof any} disease dangerous^{tohuman lifeThe chargesheet and the} statements^{recordedby the policeduringinvestigation does not} disclose that the^{said transportationof khainior chewingtobacco} would spread infection^{or any diseasedangerous to any humanlife}

¶161

According to the^{West's iegal thesaurus/ dictionary, the word} 'infect' means contaminate, corrupt,^{pollute, imbue,impress,} ar-rimate. The word 'disease' means^{deviation from the healthyor} normal condition of any of the functions^{or tissuesof the body} (occupational disease), sickness, infirmity, disorder, illness, affliction, weakness, distemper, ill health, ailment, defect, handicap, disability, breakdown, malady, abnormaiity, plague, complaint derangement, attack, discomfort, delicate constitution, delicate condition, debility, suffering, malaise, nausea, pathologr, frailty, attack, cancer, cholera, virus, "bug", syndrome.

¶162

According to Section 33 of I.P.C., the word 'act' denotes as well a series of acts as a single act; the word 'omission' 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 itsell ra,ould not spread any inlection 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

¶163

Crlp _3 ? 3 1 _20 I I and barch MSM, J

¶164

disease dangerous to hez tlr.:": comprajnt,...,."r.oor,;lt: "1"-; :ff:::::: Masala also do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 27O of I.p.C.

¶165

The other offence aregedly committed by the petitioners is punishable under Section 223 I.p,C. which deals with punishment for sale, offers or exposes for sale food or any article which has been I'erdered or has become noxious. The vuord ,noxious,is not deftned in I P'c. As per the dictionary meaning, noxious means harmfur, deleLerious. rnjurious. poisonous.

¶166

Therefore, the sale or offers or exposes lor sale of pan Masala cherving tobacco or khaini are the prohibited products under the COTP Act, 2003.^{,Transportation,} of such noxious food is not included in the offence punishable under Section 273 I.p.C., on11, feu, acts were included i.e., sale of noxious lood or drink is an olfence,

¶167

Thus the allegations made in the charge sheet coupled with the statements recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C do not disclose ingredienls to consriture an olierrce punishable under Section ,)73 Lp.C. Hou.ever, it is consisLent view ol the prosecution from the beginning that tl-lese petitioners,.r,ere found transporling pan Masala, khaini and cheu,ing tobacco in tl're dillerent vehicles referred supra, but, transportation of noxious food v\2., khaini and chelving tobacco is not included in ihe oflence punishable under Section 273 I.p.C. Manufacturing pan N,lasa1a is not included in Section 273 of Lp.C,, hence, manufacturing oI Pan Masala is not zrn olfence since it is not a noxious food.

¶168

CLlp^{3 73 1-201 8 and batch} MSM.^J

¶169

18^-

¶170

Therefore,^{ifind no pitua faciematerial against the} petitioners^{to proceedagainstthem for the offencepunishabie under} in the^charge Section 273^{l.P.C' acceptingthe allegations made} sheets and^{the statements recordedby the police} under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.^{and F.l.Rs' issued againstthe petitioners'}

¶171

The scope of^{Section 482 of Cr'P C was time and again} discussed in^{catena of perspective pronouncementsol lhe Apex} Court and in^{a Constitutional Bench judgment of the Apex Court in} " State of llargana^{a. BhajanLallo,"sevenguidelines were iaid} down and they are^{as under:}

¶172

(q) Where the dllegations^{mqde in the first} Inlormqtion Report or the complLint'^{euen if thegare} taken at their face value and^{dcceptedintheir} entiretg do not prima fdcie constitute ang offence^or mctke out a case^qgainst the accused;

¶173

(b) Where the allegqtions in the First Information Report^qnd other materials, iJ ang, accompanging the F.LR, do not disclose^q cognizable offence,^justiJging a.n investlgqtion bg police ofJicers und.er Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order ol a Magistrate within the puruiew of Section 155(2) of the Code;

¶174

(c) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complq,int and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commisslon ol ang offence and mqke out^q. cq.se^qgainst the accused;

¶175

(d) Where the o.llegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable olJence but constitute onlg q noncognlzable offence, no inuestlgatlon is permitted bA a police ofJicer witllout an order oj a Mdgistrqte q.s contempla.ted under Section 755(2) of the Code;

¶176

rr I992 Supp. (t) SCC 335

¶177

Cdp_373 t _201 8 and barch MSM, J

¶178

-^lo

¶179

le) Where the altegation: complaint qre so q,surd o' ^oo"^{ln theFIRor} on the bdsis of which ".::':::'";:::":^:::t:: reach q just conclusion thq.t there is su"fficient ground Jor proceeding q.gq.inst the accused.;

¶180

A^Vlhere there is atn express legqJ bq.r engro.Jted. in any ol the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which q. crimina.l proceed,ing is instituted.) to the institution and. continuance of the proceedings q.nd/or where there is a specific prouision in the Code or the concerned. Act, providing efficacious redress Jor the grievance oJ the aggieved pdrtA;

¶181

(g) Where a criminal proceed.ing is m.j.nikstty .rttended with md.ldfide and/or where the proceeding is mq.liciouslg instituted with qn ulterior motive for wreaking vengeq.nce on the o,ccused. q.nd with q view to spite hlm due to priudte and personal grud.ge, In the instqnt cq.se, the d.llegatio^s mq.de in the complalnt, do clectrtg constitute q cognizable olfence justifica.tion d.nd this cqse does not call Jor the exercise of extrd.ordinary or inhetent powers ol the High Court to quash the F.I.R, itsetf.

¶182

In view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in " State of Haryana u. Bhajan Lat' (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 liling charge sheet is a grave illegality, as the Food Safety Officer aione is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet following the Rules laid down under Sections 4I and 42 of FSS Act and the Judgments of the Allahabad High Court and patna High Court are clear that the police are not competerrt to investigate and to file charge sheet.

¶183

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

¶184

CrlP-3?3^{1-2018 and batch} MSM,^J

¶185

-20 -

¶186

the definition^{of Section 3(j) of FSS Act and the manufacture' saleor} exposing^{for sale of tobacco etc', is 'governed by the provisions of} COTP Act, but^{not by FSS Act and so also the provisions of IPC'}

¶187

As discussed in^{the earlier paragraphs,the respondentsare} incompetent to^{investigatethe offence'punishableunder Sections54} and 59(1) of FSS^{Act and the alle.gationsin the charge sheet coupled} with the statements^{does not'disilosethi commission of the offence} punishable under Section 273 of^{I P.C. since transportationof} noxious lood is not included under^{Section 273 of l.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 wouid 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 l.P.C.

¶188

in Criminal Petition Nos.3765, 3766 and 6755 of 20 18 (sl.Nos.3, 4 and 13) police registered case for the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) (2) (3) (5) and Section 26 of COTP Act, wherein the accused were found manufacturing Pan Masala. But Pan Masala is not a Tobacco product to fall rvithin the purview of COTp Act. Therefore, the provisions of COTP Act have no application, thereby registration of crime for vioiation of Secrions Z lt) (2t (3) (5) and Section 26 of COTP Act is an illegaliry.

¶189

In Criminal Petition Nos.681t of 6816 of 2018 (Sl.No.15 and 16) police registered case for the offence punishable under Section 20 (2) read with 7 (2) of COTp Act since the accused found transporting Pan Masala and Tobacco.

¶190

Crlp_3731 -2018^andbatch MsM,./

¶191

According to Section 7 (2) of corp Act, no person shalr carry on trade or commerce in cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products sold, supplied or distributed by him bears thereon, or in its rabel, the specified warning.

¶192

Section 7 (3) of COTp Act says that no person shall import cigarettes or any other Tobacco products for distribution or supply for a valuable consideration or for sale in India unless every package of cigarettes, or any other Tobacco products so imported by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified warning. Since the petitioners are transporting Tobacco products without any label, it ruould fa within the provisions of Section 7 (3) of COTP Act.

¶193

In Criminal Petition Nos.7081, 8216 and 7851 of 2018 (sl.Nos.20, 21 and 22J, poli,ce registered a case against the petilioners for the offence punishable under Sections 20 and 22 ol COTP Act. Since the petitioners are found manufacturing^and transportation of Tobacco products without^{any label prescribed by} lhe Act rs violation of Section^{7 (} 1)^{and 7 (3) of COTPAct, whichis} punishable under Section 20 of the Act.^{Section5 of COTP Act,} deals with prohibition of^{advertisement of cigarettes andother} tobacco products,^{which is punishable under Section 22 of COTP} Act, but no such allegation^{is found in the entire recordat attract} the olience^{punishable underSection 22 of COTP Act'}

¶194

The material on^{record inCrime Nos'235 of2018 of} PalancheruPoliceStation,CrimeNo,84of20lSofModugulaPolice Station and in^{C.C.Nos'159and 160 of 2016on the file of Judicial} Maglstrate of^{First Class atIchapurampima facie disclosed} CommissionofoflencepunishableunderSection20(2)readwithT

¶195

(\ .a'

¶196

¶197

Crlp-3 731-2018^andbatci] MSM,^J

¶198

(21,20 and, Section^{22 of COTPAct, hencethe proceedingsagainsl} the petitioners in^{Crime Nos.235 of 2018 of PatancheruPolice} Station, Crime No.84^{of 2018 of Modugula Police Stationand in} C.C.Nos.159 and 160 of 2016^{on the file of JudicialMagistrate of} First Class at Ichapuram for the oflences^{punishableunder the} provisions of COTP Act cannot be quashed.

¶199

In the result, these criminal petition Nos.3731, 3634, 3765, 3766, 5966, 5967, s968, 5969, 5970, 5971, 5972, 6754, 6755, 6758, 6859, 6954 and 6955 ol 2018 are allowed. The proceedirrgs (details of crime numbers are given in the table referred supra) against the petitioners herein are hereby quashed. No costs.

¶200

Criminal Petitions Nos. 6811, 6816, 2081, B2t6 and 7851 of 2078, are partly allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in Crime Nos.235 of 2018 of patancheru police Station, Crime No.g4 of 201,8 of Modugula Police Station and in C.C.Nos.1S9 and 160 of 2076 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ichapuram for the offences punishable under lndian penal Code and FSS Act are only hereby quashed while permitting to proceed against the petitioners lor the offences punishable under the provisions of COTp Act. No costs.

¶201

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

¶202

.II'STICE M, SATYAN ARAYANA MURT]IIY

¶203

27.O8.2018 Ksp

K Ashok Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Ashok Kumar 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

Sri.Vijay Sen Reddy and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Chimmula Laxma Reddy and 13 others Vs State of Telangana and 6 others

Mrs.P.Kousalya Vs C.Shravan Kumar

Smt.Salma Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Nalla Sridhar Vs The State of Telangana

Yan Hao Vs The State of Telangana