Allowed

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC14 Jul 2022CRLP/2634/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs and charge sheets alleging possession, transport and sale of tobacco products like gutka under the COTP Act, 2003, IPC and Food Safety Act, 2006. The High Court held none of the invoked provisions attracted, allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

All criminal petitions allowed; proceedings in the respective cases quashed; seized property and vehicles to be returned to the lawful claimants by the police following due procedure.

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana and another — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN IHE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

¶4

I I1URSDAY .THE IOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY IWO TtlOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITIoN NOS: 9062 AND 9554 OF 2021 AND 607, 2633. 2634, 2636, 2639, 2816, 2892,2900,4980, 4987, 5035, 5052, 5071, 5075, 5078, 5090, 5804, 5805, 5806, sBr1, 5836, 5859, 5867, s894, 5910, 5953, 5983, 5985, 6034, 6056, 6058 AND 6105 0F 2022

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION.NO 9062 OF 2021

¶9

Betwe€)n:

¶10

'1. Kuru Vijay Kumar, S/o Ramalinqam, Aged about 23 years, Occ. Business, R/o Venkataraopalli Ellanthakunta Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶11

Kasannagattu Sathyaoarayana, S/o Bhumaiah, Aged about 72 years, Occ. Business. fvo Prashan Gangh,Karimnagar District.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 AND 2

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Proseoltor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad

¶15

The Sub-lnspector of Police, Ellanthakunta Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in lhe circumstanc€s stated in the Memoraodum of Grounds of Criminat Petition, the Hlgh Court may be^pleased to quash thc^proccedings in FIR No. 330 of 2021^pending on the'file^of Ellanthankunta Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District against the Petitioners

¶18

l-A. NO: 2 OF 202.1

¶19

Petition under Sectior 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents to release the seized^property in FIR No.330 of 2021 pending on the file oI Ellanthankunta Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District in favour of the Pet,tioner s

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing,upoo perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Craminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BALA MURALI Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶21

CRIMINAL PETIIION NO: 9554 OF 2021

¶22

Betwcen

¶23

Alampalli Satheesh S/o Murali, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o Venkataramana Colony. D V K Road, Nalgonda Town and District.

¶24

Bandameedi Swamy, S/o Bixam, Aged about 37 years, Occ.Auto Driver, R/o Maruthi Nagar, Devarakonda Road, Nalgonda Town and District.

¶25

Athukuri Subba Rao, S/o Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 32 years, Occ.Business R/o Nereducherla Town, Suryapet District -508 218

¶26

...PETITIONER,'ACCUSED 1 TO 3

¶27

¶28

ANt)

¶29

1 . The State of Telangana Rep by its Public Proseculor, High Court f()r the State of Telangana Hyderabad.

¶30

2 The Sub-lnspector of Police. Nereducherla Police Station, Suryapet District

¶31

..R ESP ON D E NT/C OI,t P LAINAN TS

¶32

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances staled in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No.457 2020 pending on the file of Honble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Huzurnagar against the petitioners

¶33

l.A. NO:^'l OF 202'l

¶34

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the iespondents lo release the seized propent in CC No. 457of 2020 pending on the file of Honble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Huzurnagar in favour of the Petitioners

¶35

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BALA MURALI Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶36

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 607 OF 2022

¶37

Between:

¶38

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah, S/o Musalaiah Aged about 60 years, Occ. Brrsiress, R/o H.No.4-11-4-4, Chaithanyapuri Colony, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District, Tdangana.

¶39

...PETnlONER/ACCtISED No.2

¶40

AND

¶41

L The Stiate of Telangana. Rep by its Public Prosedtor. High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad.

¶42

The Sub-lnspec{or ot Police, Nalgonda lTc^^/n Police Station, Nalgonda District.

¶43

...RESPONDENTiCOMP LAINANTS

¶44

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court,may be^pleased to quash the pJoceedings in CC NO. 1138 of 2020 on the file of Honourable Judicial First Class Mabistrate at Nalgonda in so far as the petitioner/A-2 is concerned

¶45

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶46

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances stated} in lhe Memorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased} to stay all further^{proceedings including appearanceof the petitioner/A-2 in CC NO'} 1fia ot 2O2O on lhe Iile of Judicial^{FirstClass Magistrate at Nalgonda}

¶47

This Petition comlng on for^{hearing,upon perusingtheMemorandumof Groundsof} Criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the arguments ofSri BALA MURALIY, Advocatc} for the Petitioner and the^{Public Prosecutoron behalf of the Respondents}

¶48

6\ L--/

¶49

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:2633 OF 2022

¶50

Between

¶51

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah, S/o Musalaiah Aged about 58 years. Occ Business, R/o H.No.4-11-404, Chaithanyapuri Colony, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District, Telangana.

¶52

...P ETITION ER/ACC U SE D

¶53

AND

¶54

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosec.,tor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad.

¶55

2- The Sub-lnspector of Police, Nalgonda I Town Police Station, Nalgonda District.

¶56

...RESPON DENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶57

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to^quash the^proceedings in CC NO,1409 of 2021 or\ the file of Honble Judicaal First Class Magistrate at Nalgonda, Nalgonda Oistrict against the petilioner

¶58

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶59

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that io the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the stock seized in CC NO,1409 of 2021 on the file of Honble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District in favour of the Petitioner

¶60

l.A. NOi 2 OF 2022

¶61

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,lhe High Court may be^pleased to stay all further^proceedings including appearance of the^petitiooer in CC NO.14O9 ol 2021 on the file of Honble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

¶62

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BALA MURALI Y, Advocate for lhe Petitioner and lhe Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶63

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2634 OF 2022

¶64

Between:

¶65

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah, S/o Musalaiah Aged about 58 years, Occ R-/o H.No.4-11-404, Chaithanyapuri Colony, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District, Telangana

¶66

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶67

AND

¶68

The State ofTelangana and another, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad.

¶69

The Sub-lnspector of Police, Nalgonda I Town Police Station,C Nalgonda District.

¶70

,..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶71

¶72

Petilion under Section 482 of Cr.P C prayrng that in the c,rqrorsl.rnccs statcd in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, lhe Hiqh Court rnay be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No.26 ol 2022 oi the file of Nirlqrrrrcja I fown Police Station, Nalgonda Oistrict against the petitioner

¶73

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶74

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circunistarces stated in lhe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court riray be pleased to dispense wilh the filing of the certified copy of the FIR No.26 ol 202'2 or the file of Nalgooda I Town Police Slation, Nalgonda District

¶75

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶76

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P,C praying lhat in the circunrstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court nray be pleased lo direct the respondents to release the seized property in FIR No.26 of 2022 on the file of Nalgonda lTown Police Station, Nalgonda District in favour of thc pelitioner

¶77

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandurn of G.orrnds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing lhe arguments of Sri BALA MURALI Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and lhe Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responder'rts

¶78

CRlMll,lAL PEitlTlON NO: 2636 OF 2022

¶79

Between:

¶80

Bura Li ngaiah @ Kirana Sathish, S/o Muthaiah, Aged aboul 32 years, Or;r; []usrness R/o H.N o.3.33, Maniguda, Nalgonda. Telangana.

¶81

..PETITION Er</ACC U S E D N o.2

¶82

AND

¶83

.,| The Stafe of Telangana, Rep by its Pub,ic Prosecutor. High Court for thr) State of Telangaha Hyderabad.

¶84

2 The SuFlnsp€dor of Police,.Wadapally Police Station, Nalgonda District

¶85

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶86

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstanoes st.rted in the Memorandum'of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Cou.t may be l)leirsed lo quash the prdceedings in CC No.263 of 2019 pending on the file of Hon'ble ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalguda in so far as the Petitioner/A2 is concerneJ

¶87

t.A. NO: I OF 2022

¶88

Petition. underiSection 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stat(xj in the Memorandum lof Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^plt'ased to stay all further^proceedings including appearance of the^{petitioner/A-2 in CC No.263} of 2O19, pendihg on the file of Hon'ble ll Additional^{JudicialFirstClass Magistrateat} Miryalguda

¶89

This Petition cioming on for hearing,upon^{perusingthe Memorandumof Grounds of} Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^{argumentsof Sri BAL^[4URAL|Y, Advocate} for the Petitiorler and the Public Prosec,utor on^{behalfof the Respondents}

¶90

z\ (r_

¶91

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2639 OF 2022

¶92

Between:

¶93

Burra Lingaiah alias Satheesh, S/o Muthaiah, Aged aboul 32 years. Occ. Business Rio H.No.3-33, Marriguda Village, Nalgonda Oistrict, Telangana

¶94

...PETITIONER ACCUSED No.z

¶95

AND

¶96

1 . The Slate of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad.

¶97

The Sub-lnspector of Police, Miryalguda ll Town Police Statron. Nalgonda District

¶98

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶99

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P-C praying that in the circurnstances staled in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petilion, the High Courl may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC NO. 124 of 2022, pending oo the tile of Honourable Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalguda in so far as the Petitiooer/A-2 is concerned

¶100

l.A. NO:^'l OF 2022

¶101

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court Il]ay be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petrtioncr/A-2 in CC NO. 124 of 2022, pending on the lile of Honourable Judicial Fil Class Magislrate at Miryalguda

¶102

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the Meflrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BALA MURALI Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶103

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2816 oF 2022

¶104

Between:

¶105

Burra Lingaiah, S/o Muthaiah, Aged about 32 yea$. Occ Business, R/o Plot.N0.26,27, Old V.T.colony, Nalgonda, N/o. Marrigudem viliage,Nalgonda mandal, Telangana

¶106

..PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2

¶107

AND

¶108

The State of Telangana aod another, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, Hiqh Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad-

¶109

The SuFlnspector of Police, Nalgonda ll town Police Station, Natgonda District,

¶110

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶111

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circunrstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Higlr Court rnay be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No.1357 of 2021 pending on the file of Honble SPL.Judicial First Class Magistrate(for piohibition and excise) at Natgonda in so far as the Petitioner/A-2 is concerned

¶112

¶113

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶114

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memoraodum of crounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further^proceedings including appearance of the^{petitioner/A-2} in CC No.1357 of 2021. peodir,g on the tile of Honble SPL....Judicial First Class Magistrate (for^prohibition and excise) at Nalgonda

¶115

This Petitioo coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing lhe arguments of Sri BALA MURALI Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Puttlic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶116

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2892 OF 2022

¶117

Between:

¶118

Pda Veeresh Kumar, S/o Krishnaiah, Aged about 44 yeats, Occ. Business, R/o 1-76, Uppariguda, Alimiyakunta, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy Dist ict, Telangana

¶119

2 Amaravad Santhosh Kumar, S/o A- Ravinder, Aged about 30 years, Occ.Eusiness, fvo H-No.2-106, Chowderpally Village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R. District.

¶120

...PETITIONERYACCUSED 1 and 2

¶121

AND

¶122

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangdna l-lyderat ad.

¶123

2- The Sub-lnspector of Police, lbrahimpatnam (RCK) Police Station, Rachakonda.

¶124

...RESPONDENT/COI'PI.AINANTS

¶125

Petition under Section 482 of C[.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memoraodum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to^quash the proceedings in FIR No.93 of 2022 of lbrahimpatnam^(RCK) Police Station, Rachakonda so far as the Petitioners,/A-'l and A-2 are crncerned

¶126

l.A. No: I oF P022

¶127

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P-C^prayinq that in the circumstances stated in the Memordndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased pleased to dil.ect the respondents to release the seized property in FIR No.93 of 2022 ot lbrahimpalnam^(RCK) Police Station,^{Rachakondain favour oi the} petitioners

¶128

This Petition coming on^{for hearing.upon perusing the Memorandumof Grounds of} Criminal Petitipn and^{upon hearing thearguments of Sri BAL4{t'4URALl Y, Advocate} for the Petitioner and the^{Public Prt)secutor on behalf of the Respondents}

¶129

¶130

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2900 OF 2022

¶131

Betlveen:

¶132

Amaravad Santhosh Kumar, S/o Ravinder, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Business, R/o H No.2-106, Chowderpally Village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R. Districl, Telangana

¶133

2 Pola Veeresh Kumar, S/o Krishnaiah, Aged about 44 yeats, Occ, Business, R/o 1-76, Uppariguda, Alimiyakunta, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. lclangana

¶134

J. Santhosh, S/o J. Narshimaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, R/o New Bothalapalem Village,. Nereducherla Mandal. Nalgonda^qistfict - 508 218.

¶135

Gunda Vanaia, W/o Mallaiah Aged about 40 years, Occ. Housewife, Fyo 14{35, Geeta Mandir Road, Miryalquda, Nalgonda, Telangana-

¶136

...PETITIONERiACCUSED 2,3 7 ANd 8

¶137

AND

¶138

'l . The State oI Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad

¶139

The Station House Officer, Adavidevulapally Police Station, Nalgonda-

¶140

...RESPONTiENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶141

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No.15 ot 2022 of Adavidevulapally Police Station, Nalgonda in so far as the Pelitioners/A-2, A-3, A-7 and A-B are concerned

¶142

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶143

Petitioo under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the Hightcourt may be^pleased to direct the respondents to release the seized^property inrFlR No.15 of 2022 of Adavidevulapally Police Station, Nalgonda

¶144

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BAL-A MURALI Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶145

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4980 OF 2022

¶146

Between:

¶147

Mohammed Akram, S/o. Mohammed lsmail, Aged about 34 Years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Bhukthapur, Adilabad Town, Adilabad District

¶148

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶149

AND

¶150

The State of Telangana, through S.H,O.Adilabad I Town Police Station, Adilabad District. rep. by t)ublic Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶151

... RES P ON D ENTiCOM PLAINANTS

¶152

/.24 L,S.,

¶153

Petition undcr Section 482 of Cr P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurrr of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to case in C.C-NO. 147 ol 2022 oa the file of Court of Junio. Civil Judgr:) Cum Judicial First-Class Magistrate, At Adilabad, and^quash the proceedings in the ;rbove C.C No 147 ot 2022

¶154

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶155

Petition under Sectioft 482 of Cr-P.C^prayiog that in the circumstaoces stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased to dispense with filling of the certified copy of the C.C-NO. 147 of 2022 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class Magistrate, At Adilabad,

¶156

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶157

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleasad to direct the court below to return the seized material in C.C.NO. 147 ol 2022 on lhe file of Court of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class Magistrate, At Adilabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition

¶158

This FetitiDn corning on for nearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gaianand Chakravarthy, Advocale tor the Petitioner aod the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent

¶159

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4987 OF 2022

¶160

Bet\f,een:

¶161

Shamiutlah Khan, S/o Azmathullah Khan, Aged about 49 Years, Occ. Business,^Rl/o Paniesha Moheila, Adilabad Town, Adilabad District.

¶162

...PETITIONER,IACCUSED

¶163

AND

¶164

\The State of Tefangana, Through S.H.O. Adilabad lTown Police Station, Adilabad Distsict, rep. by Public ProseoJtor, High Codrt, Hyderabad

¶165

..,RESPONDENT/COMPLAIN,ANTS

¶166

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Llemorandunr of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may^{be pleased} to call for the tec(xds relating to case in C.C.NO.^{150 of 2022 on the {ile of Court of} Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class Magistrate,^{At Adilabad, and quashthe} proceedings in the above C.C.No. 150 of 2022

¶167

l.A. NO: 1 Ot' 2022

¶168

Pelition un,Jer Section 482 of Cr'P.C fraying^{that in the circumstances:;tated} in the Memorarrdum ol Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the High Court may be plcased} to dispense rvith lilling of the^{certifiedcopyo{ the C.C.NO-150 of 2022 on thefile of} Court of Junicr Civil Judge Cum^{Judicial First-Class Magistrate, At Adilabad,}

¶169

-A L"

¶170

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶171

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Courl may be pleased to direct the court below to return the seized material in C.C.NO. 150 of 2022 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Firslclass Magistrate, At Adilabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition

¶172

This Petition coming on {or hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argoments of Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent

¶173

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5035 OF 2022

¶174

Between:

¶175

Sajidullah Khan, S/o Azmathullah Khan, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business, Rio Panjesha Mohella, Adilabad Town, Adilabad District.

¶176

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶177

AND

¶178

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O. Adilabad I Town Poke Station, Adilabad District, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶179

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶180

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to case in C.C.NO- 335 of 2021 or the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial FirsGclass Magistrate, At Adilabad, aod quash the proceedings in the above C-C.No. 335 of 2021

¶181

l.A. NO: I OF 2022

¶182

Petition.under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition.the High Court may be^pleased to dispense with filling of the certified copy of the C.C.NO. 335 of 2021 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class Magistrate, At Adilabad,

¶183

l-A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶184

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the court below to return the seized material io C.C.NO. 335 of 2021 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judiciat First-Class Nragistrate, At Adilabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition

¶185

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum oI Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of thc Respondent

¶186

¶187

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5052 OF 2022

¶188

Betwecn:

¶189

1 Cholleti Rakesh, S/O Srinivas, Aged About 27 years. OCC Busrnes:;, R/o t{.No 12-4ah, bpalapally, Srirampur, Kalvasrirampur. Karim Nagar Districl

¶190

2 Boli Laxmaiah, S/O Raiaiah Aged 24 years, OCC Busrn{rss, Ryo kalvaSrirampuram, Peddapally District.

¶191

..PETITIONERJACCUSED 2 and 3

¶192

AND

¶193

Sub lnspector of police and another, Chanda Nagar, Police Station, Hyderabad

¶194

2- The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Corrrt at Hyderabad.

¶195

...RESPONDENT/COMPL AINANTS

¶196

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumsliinccs itated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to^quash all further proceedings against the Petitioners in CC No141u of :1018 on the file of Honble XIX Melropolitan Macjistrate Kukatpally, Cybcrab.rd rn the circumstances mentioned above to meet the'ends ofjustice.

¶197

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶198

Petilion undet Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying tlrat in the circunrslances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitioo,the High Court may be^pl€-ased to stay of all further proceedings against the Petitioners in cC No 1,118 of 2018 on the file of the Honble XIX Metropolitan Magistrate Kukatpally, Cyberabad^pending disposal of the main case

¶199

l.A. No: 2 OF 2022

¶200

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the clrcumstances slated in the Memorindum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased to direct the rtturn of 1) Amber 16 Bags anri Vehicle bearing registration No AP28CO I 4446 Skbda Back colour, one Nbte Cell Phone from chjolleti Rakesh and one Plus Cell Phone from Bolli Laxhmaiahseized by the 1st Respondentin Crirnc No 179 of 2018 of Chanda Nagar Police Station ,Cyberabad Oistrict^{(Now numbered as CC} No 1418 of 2018 on the file of the H9n'ble Xlx Metropolitan^{Magistrate Kukatpally'} Cyberabad)^pending disposal of the main case

¶201

This Petition coming on for hearing,uPon Perusing^{the Memorandu,nof Grouods of} Criminal Petrtibn and upon hearing thi arguments^{of Sri R. Prasad' Advocate for the} Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor ;n^{behalf of the Respondent}

¶202

¶203

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 507'l OF 2022

¶204

Between:

¶205

Vanikuppala Venkatesh S/o Balakistaiah, Aged about 43 years. Occ Business, R/o Kadthal Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District

¶206

2- Samala Kranthi Kuma., S/o Anantha Ramulu, Aged atrout 36 years. Occ. Business, Fyo H.No.8723, Uday Nagar. Colony, nmangdl, Amingal Town, Rangareddy District

¶207

..PEIITIONER/ACCUSED 1 & 2

¶208

AND

¶209

1 . The State of Telangana And another, Rep by is Public ProsecLrtor. High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad

¶210

2, B. Seetharam Reddy, ASl, Kadthal Police Station, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District

¶211

..RESPONDENI /COMPLAINANTS

¶212

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P-C^praying that in the circl,mstances stated io lhe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Corrrt may be pleased to quash the proceedings of the FIR Ct No 5712022 on the file of Kadthal Police Station, Cyberabad under Sec 272, 273.lw 34 ol IPC agarnst the pelitioner

¶213

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶214

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Corrrt rnay be pleased to dispense with for filing of the certified copy of FIR Ct No 5712022 on the file of Kadthal Police Station, Cyberabad, pending disposal of the abovc criminal petition

¶215

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶216

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in tlre circurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the Higlr Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petit'oner in FIR in Cr.No.571202? on the file of Kadthal Police Station, Cyberabad under Sec. 272, 273, rlw 34 of lPC, pending disposal of lhe above criminal^petition

¶217

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing tlre Memorandunl of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Pravcen Kurnar Veerjala, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on belralf of the Respondent

¶218

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5075 OF 2022

¶219

Between:

¶220

Samala Kranthi Kumar, S/o Anantha Ramulu, Aged about 36 years, OccBusiness, R/o H.No.8-23, Uday Nagar Colony, Amangat, Amangat Town, Rangareddy District

¶221

...PETITIONERJACCUSED(S)

¶222

z^-\ (- /L_l

¶223

AND

¶224

1 . Ttre State ol Telangana. Rep by is Public Prosecutor, High Court lor the State of Telangana Hyderabad

¶225

B. Srinivas Goud, Head Constable -412, Amangal Police Station, Cyberabad, Rangareddy Distflct

¶226

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶227

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P C praying that in thl circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High lcourt may be pleased toto quash the proceedings of the FIR in Cr.No-82/2022 oh the file of Arnangal Police Station, Cyberabad under Sec. 272.273, 188 lPC, 20(2) of COPTA Act against the^petitioner,

¶228

l.A. NO:^'l OF 2022

¶229

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [,lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to dispense with for filing of the certilied copy of FIR Ct.No.82l2O22 on the file of Amangal frolice Station. Cyberabad, pending disposal of the above criminal petition, and pass

¶230

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶231

Petition under Sectron 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Menrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to slay of all further^proceedings including arrest of the petitioner in FIR in C..No.82l2O22 on the file of Amangal Police Station, Cyberabad under Sec. 272, 273, 188 lPC, 20(2) of COPTA Act against the petitioner, pending disposal of the above criminal petition

¶232

This Petition coming on for hearing,upofl perusing the Memoranduin of Grounds of Criminal Petitibn and upoo hearing the arguments of Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent

¶233

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: s078 OF 2022

¶234

Between:

¶235

'1. Dusari Sailu Goud, S/o Mallagoud, Ag€d about 70 Years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 1- 14/506, Dwarakanaqar, Kaghaznaqar, Komrambheem-Asifabad District.

¶236

Shaik lnthiyaz Ahrned, S/o Fazal Ahmed, Aged aboul 42 Years, Occ. Eusiness, R/o H.$lo- 1-13-23511, Near Noorani Masjid, Kagaznagar, Kommmbheem Asifabad District.

¶237

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED^'l and 2

¶238

AND

¶239

The, State cif Telangana, through S.H.O. Kagtiaznagai-T,^{Poke.Stiation} Komrambhiem Asifabad Districl, rep.;i ffii;^{il;;crio.,xlghCou(l-lyoetaoao}

¶240

...RESPONDENT/COMPIAINANTS

¶241

('t-'

¶242

Pelition under Section 482 o{ Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Meororanduor of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Cou( may be pleased toTo call for the records relating to case in C.C No.26B of 2022 oa lhe file of^junior civil^judge cum^judicial ftrst class magistrate at sirpur (T) Komarambheem asifabad district and quash the proceedings in the above C.C No.268 of 2022

¶243

l.A. NO:^'l OF 2022

¶244

Petitron under Sectbn 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased To dispense with filling of lhe certified copy of the C.C.NO. 268 ol 2022 On lhe lile of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Sirpu(T), Komrambheeem Asifabad District

¶245

l.A. NO; 2 oF 2022

¶246

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances staled in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased To direct the court below to return the seized material in C.C.NO. 268 ol 2022 On the file of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Sirpur (T), komarambheem asifabad District,^pending disposal of the Criminal Petition

¶247

This Pelition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BALA MURALI Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶248

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5090 OF 2022

¶249

Between:

¶250

l.Chigullapalli Rajesh, S/o Chigulapalli Chadramouli, Aged about 33^years, Occ Business. R o 1B-21 1, Shanthi Nagar, Badepally, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar,

¶251

Chigullapalli Ramesh Ramu, S/o Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 41 years, Occ.Business, R/o 1B 9-9/49, Chandrayanigutta, Behind Police Station, Bandlaguda Hyde,abad

¶252

..-PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 and 2

¶253

AND

¶254

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the Slate ol I h angana Hyderabad.

¶255

The Sub lospector of Police, Maheshwaram Police Static Rachakonda.

¶256

...RESPONOENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶257

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandunr of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto quash thc proceedings in FIR NO.177 ol 2022 on the file of Maheshwaram Police Station. Rachakonda against the Petitioners

¶258

¶259

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶260

Petilion undcr Section 482 of Cr P C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mcmorandrrol of Grounds of Crimioal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the cerlified copy of the FIR NO.177 of 2022 on the file of Maheshwaram Police Statioo, Rachakonda

¶261

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶262

Petition undcr Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further proceedings in connection with FIR NO.177 ol 2022 on the file of Maheshwaram Police Station, Rachakonda

¶263

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶264

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents lo release the Seized property in connection with FIR NO.17l of 2022 on lhe file of Maheshwaram Police Station, Rachakonda in favour of the^petitroners

¶265

This P,rtition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grouods of Crimin;rl Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BALA MURALI Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶266

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5804 OF 2022

¶267

Between

¶268

1 U Ramanujaoeyulu, S/o Chitrayaiah, Aged about 49 years. Occ Salesman, R o.H.no-1-1-l Bl20,Flat No-2.Sree Ranga Nilayam, Jawahar nagar,Hyderabad,Telangana.

¶269

K Raghavender, S/o Chandra Shekar, Aged aboul 35^years, occ.Shopkeeper, Fyo.H.no-2-2-1'l 0y9/1/C, Sadeevaiah Nagar, Amberpel. Hyderabad,Telangana.

¶270

...PETITIONERS

¶271

AND

¶272

1 . The State oI Telangana. Rep by the Public Prosecutor, High court, Hyderabad, Througli P.S.Chikkadapally.

¶273

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶274

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^{High Court may be pleased} toto^quash the^proceedings against^{the Petitioner in Crime No-188/2022, on the file} of P.S. Chikkadapally, Hyderabad^{for the allegedoffences U/s272' 273lPC,2o(2)} COTPA

¶275

l.A. NO: 1 oF 202:l

¶276

t)etition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstanc€s stated} in the tulemor,rfldum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the High Court'may be pleased} to dispense nith the^filing of certified^{copyof FIRin Crime.No.188of 2Q22'on lhe} file of P.S. Chikkadapally, Hyderabad

¶277

¶278

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶279

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum o[ Grounds of Criminal Petilion,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in Crime. No. 1BB|2O22, on the file of P.S. Chikkadapally Town pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest o,^justice,

¶280

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶281

Petition under Sectioo 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to return the^property seized from the Petitioners in connection with Crime No.188 of 2022, on the file of P-S. Chikkadapally, Hyderabad forthwith immediately^pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of^justice,

¶282

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivasa Reddy Balakisti, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶283

CRIMINAL PETITION NO; 5805 OF 2022

¶284

Between:

¶285

Mohd Ateeq Uddin, S/o Late Khaja Moin Uddin Aged about 30 years Occ. Business R/o H.No 194-7/a/244, Al Jubali Colony, Falaknama,Bandlaguda, Hyderabad.

¶286

...PETITIONERYACCUSED

¶287

AND

¶288

The State ol Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad, Through P.S. Ramachandrapuram

¶289

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶290

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the^proceedings against the Petitioner in C.C- No.284l2022, on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Prohibition and Excise Court at Sangareddy for the alleged offences Us 273,'lBg IPC 3(M) 24(1) COTPA

¶291

l.A- NO; 1 OF 2022

¶292

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased to dispense with the filiog of certified copy of charge sheet in C.C..No.284 ot 2022, On the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Prohibition and Excise Court at Sangareddy in the interest of^justice

¶293

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶294

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P_C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner in C.C. No. 28412022, On the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Prohibition and Excise Court at Sangareddy pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of justice,

¶295

/ i't1

¶296

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶297

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that ia ttre circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Courl may be pleased to return the property seized and deposited io connection with C.C. No.284 ol 2022. On the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Prohibition and Excise Court at Sangareddy pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the inlerest of justicc

¶298

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing lhe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivasa Reddy Balakisti, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶299

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5806 OF 2022

¶300

B€twL'en:

¶301

Enishetty Santhosh, S/o Ramulu, Aged about 39 years. Occ. Business, R./o. Ramayampet Mllage and Mandal, Medak District. Telangana.

¶302

...PETI'I'IONEIIA N'D

¶303

The State oJ Talangana, Rep by the Public Proseculor, High Court, Hyderabad, Through P.S. Ramayampel.

¶304

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶305

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Court below lo return the property seized and deposited in connection with C.C No.105 of 2022, On the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at i.4edak pending disposal of the COTP in the interest of ,ustice,

¶306

l.A. NO: I OF 2022

¶307

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition.the High Court may be^pleased pleased stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in C.C. No. 10512022, On the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Medak pe,nding disposal of the Crl.P. in lhe interest of^justice,

¶308

.A. NO:

¶309

¶310

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memor4ndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may^{be pleased} to direct the court below to return the^property seized and^{deposited in coonection} with C.0 No.105 of 2022, On the lile of Judicial^{First ClassMagistrateat l,4edak} forthwith immediately^pending disposal of the^{Crl.P.in theinterest of} iustice,

¶311

This Petition ooming on for hearing,upon^{perusingthe Memorandt,mof Grourtdsof} Criminal Petitign and upon hearing the^{argumentsof Sri Srinivasa Reddy Balakisti,} Advocate for the Petitioner and the^{PublicProsecutor on behalfof the Respon(Jents}

¶312

¶313

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5811 OF 2022

¶314

Betwee n:

¶315

Mohan Lal Kumawath, S/o. Jogaram Kumawath, Aged.38 Years, Occ. Business, N o. 42-28'U 412, Malkaigiri, Hyderabad.

¶316

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1

¶317

AND

¶318

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶319

G. Laxmiaah, Sub lnspector of^police, P-S. Malkaigiri, Cyberabad.

¶320

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶321

Petition under Section 482 of Cr,P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to^quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused.No. f .in C.C.No.'1017/2022 of P.S,Malkajgiri pending on the file of the Honble XVll AN,,IM court, Cyberabad at Malakajgiri in the interest of^justice.

¶322

LA. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶323

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner/Accused .Nol in C.C.No.101712022 ot P.S Malkajgiri pending on the file of the Honble XVll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri and quash the same

¶324

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Nand Kishore Yadav, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶325

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5836 oF 2022

¶326

Between:

¶327

Narra Peddulu, S/o. Muttaiah, Aged 37 Years, Orc. Driver, R/o. H.No 2-362/1, Mangalagudem, Khammam, Telangana-507003,

¶328

.. PETITION ERYACC U S E D

¶329

ANO

¶330

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecuior, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad-

¶331

,..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶332

Petition under Section 482 of C[.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Proceedings in F.l-R.No. 217 of 2022, Before the Khammarn (R ) Police Station, Khammam District, against the Petitioner/Accused , Under Sections 27O,273 o( l.P.C, and Section 20(2) COTPA Act,

¶333

6ir

¶334

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶335

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circunrstanc€rs stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitioo.the High CourL may be pleased to Dispense with the certified copies of F.l.R.No 217 ot 202-2. Dated 28 06-2022, Registered before the Khammam Rural Police Stalion,

¶336

l.A. NO:2 AF 2022

¶337

Petition under Section 482 of C[.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition.lhe High Court may be pleased to slay all further Proceedings in F.l.R.No. 217 ol 2022, Betore the Khammam (R ) Police Station, Khammam District, against the Petitioner/Accused Under Sections 270, 273 ot l.P.C and S€ction 20(2) COTPA Act.

¶338

This Petition comiog on for hearing,upon perusiog the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S.S N.MURTIIY, ndvocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor oa behalf of the Respondenls

CRIMINAL PETITI

O: 5859 OF 2022

Between:

T;kre Mallu, S/o Narayana, Aged about 45 Years. occ Business, Ryo Vanjari Mllage, lKagahznagar Mandal, Komrambheem'Asifabad District

¶343

2- Waseem, S/o Abdul Rahaman, Aged about 35 Years. Occ. Business. R/o lodira Ma*el,tKagahznagar Mandal, Komrambheeor-Asifabad District.

¶344

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 AND 2

¶345

AND

¶346

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O. Kaghaznagar T, Police Station, Komrambhbem Asifabad Distict, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hydcrabad.

¶347

..RESPON DENTiCOMPLAINANTS

¶348

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in llre circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Gmunds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to call for the reCords relating to case in C.C.NO. 4-16 ot 2022 On the file of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class Magisuate at Sirpu(T), Komrambheeem^Asifabad Districl, and qUash the proceedings in the above C.C.No. 4'16 of 202?

¶349

l.A. NO: 1 OF

¶350

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P-C^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the^{High Court may be pleased} to disppnse with {illing of the certified^{copyof the C.C NO 146o1 2022Onthefileof} Junior Civil Jrldge Cum Judicial First-Class^{Magistrateat Sirpu(T)'Komrambheeem} Asifabad District, At Adilabad

¶351

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶352

Petition under Seclion 482 of^{Cr,P.C prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition,lhe High Court m.ly be pleased to} direct the court below^{to returnlheseized material in C C NO416 of 2022 On the} file of Junior Civil Judge Cum^{Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Sirpu(T),} Komrambheeem Asifabad^{District, pending disposal of the C.irni al Petition}

¶353

¶354

This Pelition coming on for hearing,trpon perusinQ the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hea.ing the argurnents of Sri Gajanand Chakravarlhi, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondenls

¶355

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:5867 OF 2022

¶356

Between:

¶357

1 . Kamal Kishore Bajaj, S/o Late Rameshwat Lai Bajai, Aged about 5B Years, Occ. Business, R:/o H.No.2-93/1/E, Near Masjid Stree, Tara Nagar, Sherlingampally, Sangareddy Dislrict-

¶358

Ahmed Pasha Shaik, S/o Anwar Pasha Shaik @ Anwar, Aged about 35 Years, Occ. Driver, R/o H.No. 9-93. lndira Nagar, Chanda Nagar, Sherlingampally, Sangareddy District.

¶359

3- Parasmal, S/o Jasaram, Aged about 28 Years, Occ. Business, Ryo H.No. 2-35, Huda Colony, Chandanagar, Sherlingampally, Sangareddy District.

¶360

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 to 3

¶361

AND

¶362

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O. Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy District, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad,

¶363

...RESPONOENT/COMPLAINANT

¶364

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C praying that in the circrmstances slated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to case in CC.No. lOO of 2022 On the file of Special Judicial First-Class Magistrate Prohibitioo and Excise Cum lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy Dislrict, and^quash the^proceedings in the above CCNo. 100 of 2022

¶365

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶366

Petition uoder Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased to dispense with filling of the certified copy of the C-C.No.^'lO0 of 2022 On the file of Special Judicial Firsl-Class Magistrate Prohibition and Excise Cum lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy District,

¶367

l.A. NO; 2 OF 2022

¶368

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandunr of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding including appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No. 100 ot 2022 On the file of Special Judicial Firslclass Magislrate Prohibition and Excise Cum lll Additiooal Juoior Civil Judge at Sangareddy District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition

¶369

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶370

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the court below to return the seized material in C.C.No. 100 of 2022 On the file of Special Judicial First-Class i/agistrate Prohibition and Excise Cum lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy District. pending disposal of the Criminal Petition

¶371

-\ (2^c)

¶372

This Petrtion conring orr for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gajanand Chak.avarthy. Advocate for the Petitioner and lhe Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶373

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5494 OF 2022

¶374

Between

¶375

Khr,ryLrm Shaik S/o. lbraheem, Aged about.4oyears, Occ business, H No.112'1, Kolimigadda, Dorakunta, Kodada Mandal, Suryap6t, Telangana

¶376

2 Aziz Shaik, S/o. Mustafa, Aged about 32years, Occ Business, R/o.4-46, vepalamadhavaram village, Mellacheruvu madalam, Diitricl, Nalgooda.

¶377

3 Fayazuddin Shaik, S/o. Shamshuddin. Aged about 40lyears,Occ Business, RJo. 250/3,Naydk Nagar. Ncar H.S. High school, Kodad Maidal, Kodad

¶378

4 Sai(iulu daida, S/o.Venkatratflam. Aged about 37yearC.,Occ Business., R/o.6-1 1, SC colony. Kodad mandal. Kapugal, Nalgonda, Telangbna.

¶379

5 Am{ier Basha shaik, S/o Masthan- Aged about 42 yedrs, Occ Business, Ryo. 5- 29/15/2, Matha Nagar, Kodad Mandal, Kodad, l

¶380

...PET*loNER/ACcusED 1 to s

¶381

AND

¶382

1 . The State of Telangana and another, Rep by its Public the S;tate o[ Telanoana Hyderabad.

¶383

The Station House Officer, Kodad Town Police Station

¶384

tor, High Courl for

¶385

Suryapet

¶386

...RESPOI,IDENT/COM PLAI NANTS

¶387

Petitroo ueder Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Hiph Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC NO. 398 ot 2022 On the fi{e of Honble Judicial First Class Magislrate al Kodad in so far as the Petitioners/A-1 tb A-5 is clncerned

¶388

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶389

Petition uoder Sectioo 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in fhe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ol Criminal Petition,the Hi(th Court may be^plcased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the CC Np.398 of 2022 On the tile of Honble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad, suryapdt district

¶390

LA. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶391

Petition under Sectioo 482 of Cr.P.C^praying thatⁱⁿ lhe^{circumstancesstated} in the Memorandun of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the Hii]h Court may be pleased} to direct the respondents to release the seized^{propertyi4 connectionwithCCNo.} 398 of 2022 Oo Itre lile of Honble Judicial^{First ClassMagiStrateat Kodad, Suryapet} district in favorrr of the^{petitioner/A-1}

¶392

This Petition conting on for hearing,upon^{perusingthe Memorandumof Grourrds of} Criminal Petition,,nd ,pon^{hcaring the argumenls of Sri Y. Balamurali, Advocate for} lhe Petitioner and the Public^{Prosecutoron behalfof theRespondents}

¶393

¶394

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5910 OF 2022

¶395

Between

¶396

l Syed Azher AIi, S/o Syed Ahmed Ali Age.3oyrs, Occ.Busin .^{H.oo 1B-B-104/16a.} Rajakabagh, Edibazar, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad.

¶397

...P TITIONER/ACCUSED

¶398

AND

¶399

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad.

¶400

The Sub lnspector of Police, Santoshnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District.

¶401

..,RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶402

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quaslr the proceedings in CC NO.2263 ot 2022 On the file of Honble Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, Hyderabad District against the^petitiooer

¶403

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶404

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the stock seized in CC NO.2263 of 2022 On lhe file of Hon'ble Vll Additional Chief Metropolitn Magistrate at Hyderabad, Hyderabad District in favour of the Petitioner

¶405

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds ol Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y. Balamurali, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶406

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5953 OF 2022

¶407

Between:

¶408

Syed Khaja Husnuddin, S/o. Late lbrahim, Ag@d. 50 years, H.No.9-4-131/18/113, Nadeem Colony, Tolichouki, Golkonda, Hyderabad.

¶409

Belde, Anjaneyulu, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged- 51 years, Occ. Business, H.No.4421446, Asbestors Colony, Papireddy Nagar, Balanagar Tourn, Ranga Reddy.

¶410

Mohammed Feroz Khan, S/o. Mohammed Shareef Khan, Aged.4g years, Occ. Driver, H.No. 94-1311118133, Nadeem Colony, Shaikpet, Golkonda, Hyderabad.

¶411

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶412

AND

¶413

1 The State of Telangaoa, Rep by is Public Prosecutor, High Court ror the State of Telangana Hyderattad.

¶414

2 A. Ravi, Sub-lnspector of Police, Zahirabad Rural Police Station, Zahirabad, District Sangareddy.

¶415

...RESPONDENT/COIMPLAINAN TS

¶416

¶417

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated io the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, lhe High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.39/2022 on the file of Honorable Principal Session Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, under Sec. 270 aod 273,2O(2) Rlw.7(2) of COPTA Act against the petitioner

¶418

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶419

Petition under Section 482 of Cr,P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in S.C.No-39/2022 on the file of Honorable Principal Session Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, under Sec. 270 and 273,20(2) Nw.7(21 ol COPTA Act against the petitioner, pending disposal of the above criminal petition,

¶420

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing lhe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶421

CRIMINAI- PETITION NO: 5983 OF 2022

¶422

Betwecn:

¶423

'1. Vaoamala Venu Gopal, S/o.Vaikuntam, Aged.45 years, Occ. Kirana Shope tvo. Ashoknagar, Manuguru, Khammam District.

¶424

Samudrala Venkateswarlu, S,lo.Radha Krishna, Aged. 42^years, Occ. Business. R/ o. Sundaraiah, Manuguru; Khammam District

¶425

Shaik Munnaf Pasha, S/o. Vahab, Aged 34 years, Occ. Auto Driver. tuo, PK-!, center, Manuguru, Khammam District.

¶426

...PETITIONER,/ACCUSED^,I tO 3

¶427

AND

¶428

State of Telangana, Rep- by its Publlc Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad through P.S.Manuguru.

¶429

..-RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶430

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying lhat in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to quash the proceedings CC.No.2A7 D022, U/Sec.270, 273 IPC on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Manugur against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 lo 3

¶431

l.A. NO: I OF 2022

¶432

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{ih the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{qminal Petition,the High court may be pleased} To stay all further^proceedings in CC.No.207l2022^{tJl5ec 27O273 IPCon the,ile oI} magistrate manugur induding apParnace of the^{petitioners\Accused No 1 to 3} pending disposal of the main criminal petition

¶433

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^{perusingthe Memorandum of Grounds of} Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri G.Ravi Chandra Shekhar'} Advocate for lhe Petitioner and lhe Public^{Prosecutoron behalfof theRespondent}

¶434

¶435

CRIIVIINAL PETITION NO:5985 OF 2022

¶436

Between:

¶437

'1. Vikas Chakilam S/o. Venkataramana. Age 22 years, Occ Business. R/oContract Basti, Bellampaly, Ramagundum. District, T.S

¶438

Linga Santhosh, S/o. Ramchander, Age 34 Years, Occ Business R/o. Contract Basti, Bellampaly, Ramagundum, Districl, T.S.

¶439

¶440

4 MD. lmam, S/o. Mahaboob, Age 30 Yrs-. Occ Business, R/o. Lingapur Village of Dhandepally Mandal, Mancherial District, TS.

¶441

5 Pavan Sanchari, S/o.Shankaraiah, Age 34^years Occ Business, Ryo. Kistapur Village of Jannram Mandaldal, Mancherial District, TS.

¶442

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED I to 4

¶443

AND

¶444

The State of Telangana and 2 others, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶445

The SHO, P.S. Bellampally I Town. Ramagundum District, T.S.

¶446

M. Santhosh, Subinspector of Police. PS Bellampally lTown, Ramagundum District, T.S.

¶447

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶448

Petiiion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that io the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, thc High Court may be^pleased to^quash all the^proceedings against the Petitioners / accused No.1 to 4in F.l-R.No. 51 ot 2022. 2&03-2022 issued by the SHo.. P.S Bellampally I Town, Ramagungum District for the offences under Sectioo 270 aod 273, of l.P.C.

¶449

l.A. NO: I OF 2022

¶450

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Leamed Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bellampally to return the seized case property to the^pelitioners/ Accused No.1 to 4 in F.l.R.No. 51 ot 2022, dt.28lO3l2O22 issued by the SHO., P.S. Bellampally I Town, Ramagundum District for the offences under section 27O and 273, of l.P-C.,^pending disposal of the^quash petition

¶451

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusiog the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Boggula Raju, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶452

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6034 oF 2022

¶453

Between:

¶454

'1. Chitrasan Biswal S/o Chaitanya Biswal, Aged about 4'l years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No- 24-535, Quthbullapur,Cyberabad. Hyderabad.Telangaoa.

¶455

Prahaladh Ram, S/o Teja Ram, Aged about 32 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No. 41 -1 461 1, Balanagar,Hyderabad,Telangana

..PETITIONERS

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor, Through P.S. Balanagar

¶460

.-.RESPONDENT'COMPLAINANT

¶461

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P-C praying that in the circumstaoces stated in the Memorandum of Grounds o{ Criminal Petition, the High Courl may b(} pleased toto^quash the proceedings against the Petitioners in Crime No. 22712022, P-5. Balanagar for tho alleged offences Uls 273,188.42O lPC,6(B) COIPA

¶462

l.A. No: 1 OF 2022

¶463

Petition.under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to disp€nse with the filing of cedified copy of FlR. No. 227 o'f 2022 P.S. Balanagar, Cyberabad in the interest of iustice

¶464

l.A. NOi 2 OF 2022

¶465

Petition, under Section 482 of Cf.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all furthel proceedings in Crime N).227 ol 2022, P.S Balanagar, Cyberabad pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of justice,

¶466

l.A. NO: 3 OF i022

¶467

1,"

¶468

Petitionrunder Section 482 of Cr.P-C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemoranduir of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to return the property seized from the Petitioners in connection with Crime No.227 of 2022, on the file- of P.S. Balanagar.Cyberabad forthwith immddiately pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of .iustice

¶469

This Petition doming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Pet tlon.and upon hearing the arguments o, Sri Srinivasa Reddy Balakisti, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor oo behalf of the Respondents

¶470

CRIMINAL PEflTloN NO: 6056 oF 2022

¶471

Between: :

¶472

Mohamme4. Abdul Raoof, S/o Moh3mmed Abdul Raosheed Aged about 31^yeats, Occ. Birsiness Fyo.H.no-l9'4-340i69/l,Kondareddyguda, Bahadurpura, Kishanbagh, Hyderabad,Telangana.

¶473

..PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶474

ANO

¶475

The State dJ Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor.^{ThroughP-SChaderghat.}

¶476

.-.RESPONDENT/COMP LAINANT

¶477

Petition under Section⁴⁸² of^{Cr.P.C prayingthat in thecircumstances statedin} the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,theHighCourt maybe pleased} toto^quash tha^{proceedings against the Petitioner in C.C No.73212022,on thefile of} Vlll Addl Chief Met opolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad^{forthealleged offenses U/s 188,} 273, 336 lPC,lsec 5, 2o(2) CoTP Act

¶478

¶479

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶480

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitjon,the High Court may be^pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of FIR in C.C.No⁷³² ot^2022, on the file of Vlll Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in the^interest of^justice

¶481

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶482

Pelition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumslances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner in C.C. No, 73212022, on the lile of Vlll Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad^pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of^justice,

¶483

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶484

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to return the property seized from the Petitioner in connection with C.C No.732 ol 2022, on the file of Vlll Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad lorthwith immediately^pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of^justice,

¶485

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Peti(ion and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivasa Reddy Balakisti, Advocate fo[ the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶486

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6058 OF 2022

¶487

Between:

¶488

K.Ravi Kumar alias Bharath, S/o, K. Chandrappa, Age- 46^years, Occ- Business, F/o.Plot No.37, Ground Floor, Taranagar, Chandanagar, Hyderabad.

¶489

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1

¶490

AND

¶491

The High Court of Telangana and another, Rep by its^{public prosecutor,} High court Hyderabad.Through P.S. Raidurgam, Hyderabad.

¶492

Sri. B. Sandeep Rai, S/o. B.Samuel, Age,30^years, Occ. Sl of^Police, Raidurgam, Cyberabad, Fl/o- Suncity, Narsingi, Hyderabad.

¶493

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶494

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ot Criminal Petitioo, the High Court may be pleased to^quash the proceedings against the Petitioner in C.C.No. 1069/202'l on the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyb,erabad At Ra.iendranagar, Ranga Reddy District for the offense U15ec.273,188,420 of l.P.C and Sec.3(M), 20 (2\ of C.O.T.P.Act these circumstances mentioned above to meet the ends of justice

¶495

GI ' -.

¶496

l.A- NO: 1 OF 2022

¶497

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circunrstances stated in the Memorandlrrn of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to Stay ail further proceedings in pursuance of the C.C.No.106912021 on the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad At Rajendranagar, Raoga Reddy District for the offense U/Sec.273,188,420 of l.P.C and Sec,3(M), 20 (2) of C.O.T.P.Act pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition

¶498

This Petition @ming on for hearing,upon perusiog the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitioa and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None for the Respondent No.2

¶499

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6105 OF 2022

¶500

Between:

¶501

Tharange Nagesh, S/o. Balajeed, Aged 20 Years, Occ driver, FV o. 11-1-2293, Nizambad.

¶502

,..PETITIONERIACCUSEO

¶503

AND

¶504

l he State of Telang€na and another, Rep. by its Public kosecutor, High Court at tlyderabad

¶505

G.Laxmaiah, Sub lnspeclor of police, P.S. manor,Narayankhed, Sangareddy)

¶506

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶507

Petition under Section of Cr.P.C^praying that in lhe circumslances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to quash the proceediogs against the Petilioner/Accused in C.C.No.16812o22 ot P.S-Manoor, Naryankhed, Sangareddy and return the^property seized by the^police Manoor pending on the file of the Hon'ble JFCM, court, Narayankhed, Sangareddy, in the interesr of JUStic€.

¶508

l.A. NO:^'l OF 2022

¶509

Petition under Seclbn 482 of Cr.P-C praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the Memorandtrm of Grounds of cri;ninal Petilion,the High Court rnay be^pleased to stay all further^proceedings including the appearance of the Peulioner/Accusedⁱⁿ C,C-No. 168/2022 of P.S, Manoor, Narayankhed, Sangreddy^{pendihg on lhe file of} the Hon'ble .IFCM court, Naraynkhed, Sangareddy

¶510

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^{perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearinglheargumentsof Sri NandKishore} Yadav, Advoc:te for the Petitioner^and the^{PublicProsecutoron behalfof the} Respondents. NO.1 and^{nonefor the RespondentNo-2}

¶511

The Court made the following:^{COMMON ORDER}

¶512

@ 3

¶513

I)r.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 oI2O2l and l)atcll

¶514

HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶515

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.9062 and 9554 of 2027 and CRTMINAL PBTITION Nos.607, 2633, 2634, 2636, 2639, 28t6, 2892, 2900, 4980, 4987 , 5035, 5052, 5071, 5075, 5078, 5090, 5804, 5805, 5806, 5811, 5836, 5859, 5867, 5894, 59 10, 5953, 5983, 5985,6034, 6056, 6058 and 61O5 of 2022

¶516

COMMON ORDtrR:

¶517

Projecting that the provisions of law under which the accus:rtion is made agajnst the petitioners does not attract to the lacts of the case and thereby, seeking to quash the proccedings that are pending against the petitioners, these Criminal Petitions are filed.

¶518

Seeking to quash the charge sheets, Criminal Petition Nos.9554 of 2021, 607, 5910, 5894, 2633, 2636, 2639, 2816,4980,4987, 5035, 5052, 5078, 5805, 5806, 58 11, 5953, 5859, 5867, 5983, 6056, 6058 and 6105 of 2022 are filed.

¶519

Seeking to quash the F.I.Rs, Criminal Petition Nos.9062 o{ 2021, 2892,2900, 5090, 2634, 5O7 1, 5O75, 5836, 6034, 5985 and 5804 of 2022 are filed.

¶520

¶521

l)r CSL, J Crll'No.L)O62 of 2021 attd bdtch

¶522

4- A mcticulous perusal ol the material that is available on record in all the Criminal Petitions discloses making of accusation against the petitioners invoking Sections 3(m), s, 6(b), 7(21, 7(5l,, 20(2l,,24(ll ar,d 23 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement ard Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and I)istribtrtion) Act, 2O03 (hereinafter referred to as "the COTP Act, 2OO3", for brevity). As far as the provisions attracting the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they are Sections l8B, 269, 27O, 272, 273, 278, 328 read {,ith 511, 33(i, 409 and 420 IPC.

¶523

ln Criminal Petition No.9554 of 2O21, Section 34(a.) of Excise Act, 1968 and in Criminal Petition No.9O62 of 2O21, Section 59(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 were also invoked.

¶524

The sum and substance of the version of^the prosecuting agency in all these cases is that the^petitioners were in possession of the tobacco^products like^gutka,pan masala, etc., arrd they were found involved in^{activities like} selling, storing or transporting the said tobacco^products.

¶525

¶526

Dr.Cg,,,J (:rlt'No.9062 of 2O2 t and batclt

¶527

For proper understanding of the case, the^provisions of law invoked, the gist of the^{allegationsand the crux of} the matters taken up for adjudication are tabulated^as

¶528

under:

¶529

sl. No	Crl.P. No.	RELIEFSOUGHT FOR	SECT	IONS OF LAW	II{VOLVED	NATURE OFFENCES OF
			COTP Act	IPC l	orHER llaws
1	9554 of 202t	Quash^of CC No.457of2O2O pendingon thefile of courtof JudicialMagistrate of FirstClass, Huzurnagar.	a1 20(21	273	34(a)ofAP Dxcise Act, l96B	Selling and transportationof tobaccoproducts. llK-9000gutka-30 packets 2)bluebulltobacco- 3Opackcts 3)mcdowelswhisky quartcr-46 Royal stagquarter- 40
2	2a92 OF 2022	Quash of FIR.No.93of2022 ofIbrahimpatnam Police Station, Rachakonda. (petitionersA1 &42)	20(2)	27Oand 273	NII-	Sclling and transportationof tobaccoproducts. 1)K9OO0gutka packets-120 pouchcs. (2)H-1Ocigarettes- 35 ckcts
3	9062 OF 2021	Quash^of FIR No.33Oof2O2lof Ellanthankunta Police Station, RajannaSiricilla district. (PetitionerA 1&A2)	NIL	270, 328 511 273, R/w	s9(i)FSSA, 2006	Posscssion scllingol and Tobaccoproducts Amber packets- 48 VimaIpackets-155 V-1packet-2O8 Pariscig.!etLc42 gutka
I	607 OF 2022	Quash of CC.No.1138of 2020pendingon the fileof JFCM at Nalgonda (pctitionersA2) I	7(s), 20(21	272,273 and42O	Ntt,	Sclling and transportationof tobaccoproducts. l)cigaretteESSE light-5 packets. 2)Paris big size o CI ttc-I

¶530

¶531

I_)r.CSL, J LlLl'No-9O62 of 2021 and bdtch

¶532

		I		I I	I I	packets, 3)Strawberry super' cigarettes-3 packets, 4)Parissmall cigarette-13 ackets Mond slim slzc T
5	2900 OF 2022	Quash^of FIR No.15of2022of Adavidevulapally Police Station(petitioners A2,A3,A7,AAI	20(2)	tB8,272, 420 I	NIL I	Transportationand I'ossession of balnedproducts, viz-, tobacco/ /^{gutka/khainietc.} (1)bluebull - 12 bags. (2)K-9000Gutka- 5ba S
()	5910 OF 2022	Quash of CC.No.2263of 2022pendtngon the file ofthc Court of VII AdditionalChief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad(sole accused	nil	272,273, 336	Nil	Sclling tobacco products: 1)ParisCigarettes 239boxes 2.WinCigarettes 27boxes3.XL-1 Jafra-niTobacco-18 Packets, 4.V-1Tobacco-25 Packets, 5.RR GoldTobacco 585Packets, 6.S.R-1Tobacco- 265 packets, 7.RR Group Tobacco-45 packets, 8-Maha Baba Zafrati Tobacco- 126packets, 9.SwagathGold Tobacco-96 packets,l0.Amber Tobacco-45 packets, Il.RajaTobacco- 120packets, l2.MerajTobacco- IOl:rdl'tis
7	5894 OF	of of CC.No. 2022 Quash 398	24(tJ ,1	420,273 __	NIL -- r _	Sclling trilrts)ortation and of L

¶533

¶534

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 of2O21 and. batch

¶535

	2022	pendingonth(r filc of theCourtol JFCM atKodzrd (petitionersA1-A5) 1 I		I		tobaccoproducts: 1)RR-4440sachets 2)Amber-7500 sachets, 3) vimal-3000 sachets, 4)V-1-3000 sachets, 5)Swagath- 154 sachets,6)Miraj- 225sachets.
8	5090 OF 2022	Quash of FIR No.177of2022 ol MaheshwaramPS Rachakonda. (Petitioners A1&A2)	6(B)	270,273	NIL	Transporting tobaccoproducts, forselling, viz., (I) SagarPan Masala - 2OO packets, (21sR-1 - 2OO packets (3)RRTobacco- 160packets, (41Vimal-2Oo packets, (5)Chaini Tobacco -10 packets, (6)SwagathGold Tobacco - 60 packets.
9	2633 OF 2022	Quash^CC14O9ol 202Ipending^or.t ttre h-lc ofthe Court ofJFCM^at Nalgonda. (soleaccused) _	nil I__,	272,273 r	Nil	Transportationof tobaccoproducts. (1) RRtobacco products -5 packets, (2)Swagathgold tobaccoproducts-5 packets (3) Biue bul1 tobaccoproduct-5 packets (4) SagarPan Masala-4packets (5)SR-1tobacco products -2O packets, (6)K-9OOOtobacco product-3packets, (7)V-1.tobacco products- 20 ackets,

¶536

¶537

f.tr CSL. J

¶538

O lPNo.9O62 of 2021 uld batclL

¶539

				I		(8)Vimal products tobacco 3 ackets
10	2634 OF 2022	Quash^o[ FIR No.26of2022of Na-lgondaITot'n policestation. {sole^accused)	7(s), '2Ot2l	269	Nil	Illegallyprocuring of balnedgutka and tobacco prodr-rcts. (1)120babatobacco products5 Lins, (2)goldenzardaone boxcontaining1O (50)gramsboxes, (3)sagarzarda60 ouches
11	2636 OF 2022	Quash of CC.No.263of2079 pendingonttrehle ofthe Courtof[I AdditionalJFCM atI{iryalguda. (petitionerA2) I	r.ril	273,274 and42O I	Nit	Illegallysellingand transportationof noxious Gutka. I.BlueBull-3o5 packets, 2. Khaleja-259 Packets, 3. Amber-32 packets, 4. Mkaj - 80 packets, 5.V-lTobacco-243 packets, 6. VimalPan Masala -150 packets, 7. Rani (791 consisting 70 pieces.
T2	2639 OF 2022	Quash^ofCC.No. 124 of 2022 pendingon the filc oftheCourtof JFCM at Miryalguda. ft:etitioner^A2)	20(2)	324 511 I	Nil	Selling gutka packetsillegally. (1)K9OO0gutka packets-10, (2)Mahababa tobaccopouches- 60, (3) V-l tobacco packets-1O4, (4)Mirajtobacco- 525 pouches.
13	2arc OF 2022	Quash of CC.No.1357 of 202Ilgrylrng"q	niI	272,273	NiI	sellingof andother Illegally gutl<a tobacco roducts

¶540

¶541

						Dr.CSL,J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2021 en<1botctt
		thefilcof thecourt ofSpecialJFCM (for prohibition and cxcise offcnces) at Nalgonda. etitionerA2				(i)V-1 gutka-57 packcts, (2)SR-Igutka-107 packets, (3)BANARS[gutka- 3Opackets. l
t4	4980 OF 2022	Quash of CC.No.147ot2022 pendingon thefile of thc courtof JudicialMagistrate of FirstClass, Adilabad. (pctitioncr sole accused	NiI	270,273	Nil	Illegalpossessionof tobaccoand gutka. (l)RK classic tobacco-8 Boribags. l I
15	4987 OF 2022	Quash of CC.No.150of2022 pendingon thefile of thc courtof JudicialMagistrate of FirstClass, Adilabad. (sole accuscd)	Nil	270, 273	Nil	Iliegallypossession and sellingof noxioussubstances i.e.,tobacco (l)RK Classic Tobacco-04bie bags, (21 RK Classic Tobacco-10plastic covers, (3) JI( Tobacco- lOBoxes, (4)HotTobacco-10 smallbags, (5) ActionTobzrcco- O2boxes, (6)Amber-20 packets, (7) XZOITobacco- 01 smallbag, (8)SRTobacco-OI smallbag, 9)GaneshTobacco- 01bi ba
1()	5035 oF 2022 I	Quash of CC.No.335of2O2	pending onthefile of theCourtof JudicialMagistratc ofFirstClass,at Adilabad. sole acctrsc4)	Nil	270,273 I l	Nil

¶542

¶543

/,^(i.st .^._,r (:rl!'jN,91){t2 ol 20) I etkl LolLIl

¶544

17	5052 oF ito22	()uash of CC.No.1418 of 2O18or.rthehleof XIXN'tetropolitan Magistratc Kukatpally, Cyberabad. (pelitioners A2&A3 l	20(2)	409,420, 273,t88	Ni1	'l'ransporting balned tobacco, par-tmasala,gutka packcts from Karnatakastate illeSlally. (l)Amber 16 bags.
r8	507i OF 2022	Quash of FIR.No.57of2022 o[Kadthalpolice station. (pctitioncrsAl &A2) I	NIL	272,273 r/w34	Nil	Purchasingand selling banned tobacr:oitems tothe publir: athigher rertes h;rving pr:nnission governmcllt without valid from (1)K-900oCutka- 22packets, (2)ltRGutka-4bags, (3)SrvagathGold-27 packets (4)RRTobacco-23 packets, (5)RRGoldChewing 'l'obacco-l4packcts, {6)^{VirnalTobacco-6} packets (7)MirajKayne-17 packets (8) Banarsi perfumedTobacco- iOp:rckets (9) Chotababa Zalram Parti-1O pacl(ets, (10)ChainiTobacco -2packets (11) Sudhakar Zarda-21 packcts (12)MirajTobzrcco- l8prx:kets, (13)Pariscigarette cl{cts- I I I
r9	5075 OF 2022 I	Quash of FIR.No.U2of2O22 olAmangalpolice stalion,	20(21	r84,272, 273	Nil	Selling par:kcis vlliclperrnission l+rtka !.ithorlt k-q000 tka

¶545

¶546

DT.CSI-, J CrlPNo.9062 of202l (md batch

¶547

	I	Cyberabad, (soleaccused)				packcts-60 big Ir^ackr:ts I
20	5078 OF 2022	quashofCC.No 26a of 2022 pendingonthefile of theCourtof JudicialMagistrate of First Class Sirpur, Komararnbheem Asifabaddistrict (petitionersAl &42)	nil	270, 34 420,	Nit	lllegalpossession andsaleofnoxious materiad containing nicotine. (l)pool chap-5 cartons. l
'21	581i of 2022	Quash^of CC No.1Ol7of2022 pendingon theflle of theCourtof XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. (petitionerA1)	20(21	272,273, 188	Nit	Dumping, transportingand sellingofbanned tobaccoproducts: (1)R,R. chewing tobacco- 9Opackets, (2)Swagath GoId- 47packets, (3)RR Tobacco TOpackets, (4)RajaTobacco- lO2 packcts, (51MirajTobacco- 95packets, (6)AmberTobacco- 24 packets, (7)V-lTobacco-225 packets, (S)SR-ITobacco- 54
						ackets.
22 I	5836 of 2022	Quash of FIR.No.217of 2022 ofKharnrnarn policestation. (soleaccused)	20(21	270,273	Nil	s). Transportingand sellingofKhaini, gutka etc.-from state oIKarnataka. 10bagsolAmber Gutka(cachb"g contain 100 kct
23	5859 of 2022	Quash of CC.No.416of 2022 pendingon thehle of theCourtof JudicialMagistratc of FirstClass,	nil	270,273	Nil	Illegalpossession andsalco[noxious food. (fromAI) (ilbail jodi- 9 kcts

¶548

1'.2

¶549

LtlCSL. J ( t ll''o')062 of2O)l e,kl bath

¶550

[	T- I	Sirpur, KomrarnbheemAsif abadDistrict. (petitionerAl&A2) I				(2)poolchap 15 packets. (from42) (i):rmbcrpackets- 98packcts. (2)M tobacco-32 boxes. (3)V-1tobacco-716 parckets. (4)V-1tobacco-48 puckets(blue). (5)N1 tobacco-48 packets (6)XL-01tobacco- 134packets. (7)XL-01tobacco small-216packets (8)bailjodipackets- 4 l9lmaza^tobacco-2 packets (1O)Kashmiri quirvantobacco-10 packets. (il)DJ tobacco-S packets (12)janamtobacco- ipacket. {13)pul^chap-175 packets t4)jalamtobacco small-60packets (15)babatobacco-2O packcts (16)baba black tobacco-lO packets (17).rKtobacco-18 ckt:ts I
24 I	5a67 of 2022 I	Quash of CC.No.lOOof2022 pendingon thefile of theCourtof SpecialJudicial MagistrateofFirst Class,prohibition a-nd Excisc, Sangareddy. titionersA1-A3	20(21	270,273 I	Nil	Transportationof plotribited gutkain carfrom Bidarto Hydcrabad. 313bagsofMiraj klrairriZardaeach birgcontains35 pacl<0ts.

¶551

¶552

Dr.CSL, J CTLPN1 9062 oI2O21 and batch

¶553

2<	5953 of 2022	Quash^{ofSC No.39} of2022^pending onthehleofthe CourtofPrincipal SessionsJudge, Medak at Salgareddy. (petitionersA1-A3)	20(21 712)	270,273	Nil	IllegaJly transporting prohibitedtobacco packets. (1)Onchila-lonchipas and 56boxes. (2)baba l2O cllewingtobacco smalltins-6boxes. (3)baba 120 chewingtobacco tins-l2boxes. (4)baba tobacco smaIlpackets-130 ladis. (5)miraztobacco-35 ladis. (6)mahakchaini tobacco-2bags. (7)baba 160
						tobacco-67ladis.
26	5983 of 2022	Quash of CC.No.2O7of2022 pendingonthcfile of the courtof JudicialMagistrate of FirstClass, Manugur. (petitionersA1-43)	NIL	270, 273 I	Nit	Tralsportingand possession of banned tobacco products. (l)Amberbigbags- 10, (2)VimalPanmasala zutka-^5Opackets
27	6034 of 2022	Quash of FIR.No.227of 2022ofBalanagar policestation. Cyberabad. (petitionersA1 &A2)	6(B)	273,188, 420 t_	NIL I	Sellinggutkaand panspices. (1).MirajTobacco- 35packets, (2)VimafTobacco 22packets, (3)VimalJardha- 22packets, (41 Sagar Panmasala- l0Packets, (5)SR-1Jardha- 9packets, (6)RRPanmasaJa- 4Packets, (71 RR-Gold O4packets, (8)SwagathGold 4 ackets, I

¶554

¶555

Dr.CSL. J CrlPNo.9062 of 2021 on<l batclt

¶556

	T	-		I		(9) Rlt-Miraj 6packets, (1O)Bahubali Panmasala- 5packets, (11)BlueJardha- 5Packets, (,12]r Raj NivasJardha- 3packets, (13) RajnivasPanmasala- 3Packets, (14)Raj Tobacco- lPacket I I I
28	5985 of 2022	Quash^ofFIR No.51of2022 of BellampallyI Town police station, Ramagundam. (petitionersA1- A4)	nil	270,273	Nil	Illegalsaleand transportationof bannedgutka packets. Amber-350 packets, M- scentedtobacco- 45packets,V1 tobacco-19O packets.
29	6056 of 2022	Quash of CC.No.732of2022 pendingon thefile ofthe Courtof VI[[ AdditionalChief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. (sole accused)	5, 20(21	t88,273, 336	Nit	Purchasingand traisporting of banned tobacco products fromBidar toHyderabad. (l)RRtobacco-13 bags, (2)RRgold tobacco- 13bags, (3)MirajTobacco- 12bags, (4)tooseTobacco -7 bags, (S)SR-1Tobacco4 bags, (6)VimalTobacco- 4bags, (7)Paris Tobacco- 17Oboxes, (S)Easy Light Cigarettes- 40 boxcs, 9 Baba160 I

¶557

¶558

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2021 and batch

¶559

						ackets. cartoon), (IO)Babal2O-10 boxes, (11)Baba120-4 boxes(eachbox 200gms), (12)BabaBlack-24 box, (13)Baba120-12 boxes, (14)Baba12O-5 boxes, (15)Ratna-4boxes, (16)Chaini6 bags (17)Milano cigarettes-2 boxes (18) Mond cigarettes-1 box (19)Gudanggaram- lbox (20)Swagath Tobacco-4 packets, (21)AmberTobacco 4 I
30	6058 of 2022	Quash CC.No.1069 202ipending the fileof Courtof Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad Rajendranagar. titi at of of on the XVI	s(M), 20(2\|273,1A8, 420	Ni1	Illegally transporling prohibitedgutka packets. (1)R.Rgoldtobacco -^3Obags (2)Pan Raghcer-6O bags.
		(pconerA1l
31	5804 of 2022	Quash of Cr.No.l88 of2022 ofChikkadapally police station, Hyderabad. (petitionerA1&42) I I I l	20(21	273, 272	NIL	Purchasingand sellingofbanncd tobaccoproducts. (1)H-10 Banned Cigarettes 27 Packets, (2)Tobacco-2 bags, (3)GoldT:rbacco 2Bags, (4)KPDoublcl3lack 'l'obacco4LJir3!

¶560

1(j

¶561

l)t^(::;i. ,I ( tLl)' ' )06,) t'l .)t),)l t t t1.l btn,^lL

¶562

						(5)V-1^'l'obacco-I Bag, (6) RajaKhaini Tobacco2Bags, (7)Sw-agathGold Tobacco-413ags, (8)MirajTobacco-1 Carton, (9)lxroseTobacco- 25Packets, (10)RRtobacco- packets, (11) SagarPal Masala1Bag, (12)TO PanMasala -lCarton, (13) RRPanMasala -1B.rg, (1a) RajNivasPan Masala-2Bags (15) Vima.lPan MasalaBBags, (16\24CaretPan
						Masa-la-5Boxes.
32	5BO5 ofco)t	Quash of CC.No.2U4of2022 pcndingon thehle of thcCourtof judicialrnagistrate ofhrstclassand cxcisc court sangzLrcddy. (Soleaccuscd) l	3(M), 24(t)	272,t88	NIL	Illegal transportationof banned tobacco productssuchas gutkapanmasala from Bidar to Hyderabad. 1)RRmiraj-Ibag, 2)RRpanmasala-3 bags, 3)RR^jardha-3bags, 4)sagarpanmasala -2bags, S)sagar^jardha2 bags, 6)sr.vagath-1bag, 7)vimalpanmasal- 6bags, 8)vrrnal^jardha-6 b
	5806 of 2022	Quash of CC.No.105of2022 pcndrngon thefile oftlr<: C<lurtof I	20(2)	270, 273	NIL	Selling ofgutkaand tobaccoproducts. (l)Miragepackcts t37,

¶563

¶564

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O('2 oJ 2O21 and ltcttclr

¶565

r-T l I	_---	JudicialMagistrate ol FirstClass, Medak. (soleaccused)				(2)Vimalpackcts 200r5,(3) SagarPackcts 350, (4)SR-1Packets- 364, (5)VIPackets225, (6) Blue Bull packetsI50, (71 SwagatGold- 100, (8)ChainiPackets- JJ, (9) BanarsiPackets 7t, (10)Amberpackets- 100, (11)Zardhapackets- t7, (12) Latcefpackets 23, (13) Swapna .rcl(cLs3- I
34	6105 of 2022	Quash of CC.No.168 of2O22 pendingonthefile of theCourtof JudicialMagistrate of FirstClass, Narayalkhed, Sangareddy. I	20(21	273	NIL	Purchasingtobacco productsatlower price and transportir-Igsame from Bidar to Nizamabad, Ambertobacco -7O b b

¶566

In the light of the said factual scenario, it^has to^be

¶567

seen whether the provisions of law mentioned^therein attracts the allegations laid. The^{pointsthusemergesfor} consideration are:

¶568

(1) Whether being in possession and hd.ving found inaolaed. either in transporting or selling the tobdcco products like cigarettes,^gutkq, chrrirni, etc., dttrdct the prouisions of^COTP

¶569

Act,2OO3.

¶570

1,3

¶571

I)r.t::Sl-, J CrlPNo.rr(t62 o[ 2O2l ard batch

¶572

(2) Whether the acts of possessing, transporting or selling tobacco products like cigarettes, gutka, cha,ini, etc dttract the prouisions of the Indian Penal Code, 7860 more pdrticulqrlg Sections 788, 269, 27O, 272, 273, 278, 328 redd utith 577, 336,4O9 and 42O IPC.

¶573

(3)Whether either transporting or selling or possessing tobacco products like cigarettes, gutkd, chain| etc attracts Section 59(1) of Food Safetg and Standards Act, 2006.

¶574

(4) Whether there exists anu justiJidble grouttds to lnaoke the pouer granted to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. q.nd to quqsh the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners as praged Jor.

¶575

9.Point No. 1:-

¶576

Whether being in possession and hating found inaotued either in transportlng or selling the tobacco products like cigarettes, gutka, choini, etc., dttrdct the prooislons of COTP Act, 2OO3.

¶577

Making their submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners UTZ Sri Y.Bala Murali, Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy, Sri Ravanaboina Prasad, Sri Veerjala Praveen Kumar, Sri Balakisti Srinivas Rccldy, Sri Nanda Kishore Amarchand Yadav, Sri S.Satyan:rru l,vana Murthy. Sri G.Ravi Chandra Sekhar and Sri M.R.Boggula

¶578

¶579

Dr.CSL, J CtlPNo.9O62 of 2O21 and batch

¶580

Raju, in one voice contended that the average revenue, including GST and Excise duty, from tobacco products stands at about Rs.53,750 crores in the entire country, as told by the Central Finance Minister to Rajya Sabha. l,earned counsel also stated that 3O% of the revenue to the Government of the State of Telangana is through sale of liquor and tobacco products and indeed, the petitioners have not committed any offence whatsoever either under the COTP Act, 2003 or under the Indian Penal Code. The contention of the learned counsel is that possession of tobacco products like gutkha and chaini is not prohibited in the State of Telangana and further, none of the provisions of COTP Act, 2O03 attracts the alleged acts committed by the petitioners even if it is presumed that the story of the prosecution is true and correct ald therefore, the proceedings that are initiated against them are unsustainable in the eye of law.

¶581

Quite contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that use of tobacco products is injurious to health, and that Rules and Regulations w.ere framed by the

¶582

'20

¶583

Dr-CSL, J Ct1PNo.9O62 of2O21 a d b@tch

¶584

Government to restrict the use of tobacco products. Learned Assistar-rt Public Prosecutor also contended that there is a mandatory rcquirement to exhibit on the overleaf of the tobacco products sold tha.t the said product ]S injurious to health if consumed and wide publicity is also being given by the Government to restrict the use of tobacco products and thus, possession of huge quantity of tobacco products is a punishable offence. The test of the veracit5z of the submissions made should be based on the provisions contained in the rclevant legislation i.e., COTP Act, 2003. As rightl]. subrnitted by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it has been acceptcd universally that the major share of a-nnual deaths in the country is due to use of tobacco producl.s. By tl're date of introduction of COTP Act, 2003, it was estimated that eight lakhs deaths annually in the country ar-e due to the use of tobacco products directly or indirectly. Whe n the parliamentary committee recommended that there is a need for comprehensive legislation to prohibit advertisement regarding use of tobacco products and for regulating the production, supply and ciistribution of tobacco products inciuding cigarettes,

¶585

¶586

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9o62 o[^{202 ]} ond batclt

¶587

the Cigarettes^{and OthcrTobaccoProducts(Prohibition of} Advertisement and^{Regulation of Trade and Commerce,} Production, Supply^{and Distribution) Bill was introduced'} The said Bill having^{been passed by both the Houses of} Parliament and^{havingreceived the ascent of the President} on 18-O5-2003, came into^{lorce as "Cigarettesand Other} Tobacco Products^(Prohibition of^{Advertisementand} Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production,^Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. The COTP Act, 2003 besides prohibiting smokir.rg in public places, also prohibits advertisement ol cigarettes and tobacco products. Further, the COTP Act, 2OO3 prohibits sale of cigarettes and tobacco products to a person below the age of 18 years and in an area within a radius of 100 yards of any educational institution.

¶588

Coming to the cases taken up for adjudication, police made accusation that Sections 3(m), 5, 6(bl, Z(2), Z(S), 20(21, 24(t) and 23 of COTp Act, 2003 attracts to the acts committed by the peritioners, though not COlleCtifely.

¶589

¶590

DT CSL, J ()'U'No.9O62 of 2O2l and batch

¶591

Therefore, for proper understan;ling, the said provisions ar(' extracled as under:_

¶592

Section 3(m) of COTp Act, 2003 reads as undcr:"sale", with its grammatical variations and cognatc cxpressrons, means any transfer of property in goods by one person to another, whether for cash or on credit, or by way of exchange, and whether u.holcsale or retail, and includes an agreement for sale, and offer for sale and exposure for sale".

¶593

Section 5 of COTP Act, 2003 reads as under:_

¶594

"Prohibition of advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products(1) No person engaged in, or purported to bc engagcd in thc production, supply or distribution o[ cigarcltes or any other tobacco products shall advertisc and no person having control over a mediurr shall cause to be advertised cigarettes or any othcr tobacco products through that^medium and n() pcrson shall take^part in any aclvertiscmenl which directly^orindirectly suggests or^{promotes the use or consumptiono[} cigarettes^{or any other tobacco products'} (2) No pcrson'^{for any direct or indirectpecunial'r} be r rc fit,^shall- (al aurhorise^{display, cause to .Y.J:"";:::::I""' to display' or permrt ()r} or - ^-., arrr othef^! C,'gUttttt'oI

¶595

¶596

Dr,CSL, J CTIPNo-9O62 of 202 t and balch

¶597

(b) sell or cause to sell, or permit or authorise to sell a Iilm or video tape containing advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or

¶598

(c) distribute, cause to distribute, or permit or authorise to distribute to the public any leaflet, hand-bill or document which is or which contains an advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or

¶599

(d) erect, exhibit, fix or retain upon or over any land, building, wall, hoarding, frame, post or structure or upon or in any vehicle or shall display in any manner whatsoever in any place any advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product:

¶600

Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in relation to-

¶601

(A) an advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product in or on a package containing cigarettes or any other tobacco product;

¶602

(B) advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product which is displayed at the entrarice or inside a warehouse or a shop where cigarettes and any other tobacco products are offered for distribution or sale.

¶603

(3) No person, shall, under a contract or otherwise promote or agree to promote the usc or consumption of-

¶604

(a) cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or

¶605

(b) any trade mark or brand name of cigarettcs or

¶606

any other tobacco product in exchange for a

¶607

¶608

¶609

It^(:st.. l Q 1t');1,.c))t'- ol )O) I t),rllnti,'1r

¶610

sponsorship, gitt, prize or scholarship gi\ren or agreed to be given by another person".

¶611

Section 6(b) of COTP Act, 2003 rcads as under :

¶612

"Prohibition on sale of cigarette or other tobacco products to a person below the age of eighteen years and in particular area:-

¶613

(b) in an area within a radius of one hundrt-d yards of any educational institution".

¶614

Sections 7 (21 and 7(5) of COTP Act, 2003 reads as unclcr:"Restrictions on trade and comrnerce in, and production, supply and distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco products:-

¶615

(2) No person shall carry on trade or commcrcc irr cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tob:rc,:O products sold, supplied or distributed by hirl bears thereon, or on its label, the specifir:d warning.

¶616

(5) No person shall, directly or indirectly, producc, supply or distribute cigarettes or any othcr tobacco products unless every package o[ cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by hirl indicates thereon, or on its label, the nicotine anrl lar contents on each cigarette or as the case mirY be on other tobacco products along u,ith tlrr: rnaximum permissible limits thercof.

¶617

¶618

Dr.CSL, J (:rlPNo.9062 of 2O21 and batch

¶619

Provided that the nicotine and tar contcnts shall not exceed the maximum permissible quantity thereof as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act".

¶620

Section 20(21 of COTP Act, 2003 reads as under:-

¶621

"Punishment for failure to give specified warnitrg and [icotine and tar contents:-

¶622

(2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which clo not contain cither on the package or on their label, tlrc specihed warning and the nicotinc and tar contcnts shall in the case of hrst conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term, u,hich rnay extend to one year, or with finc rvhich may cxtend to one thousand rupees, or u,ith both, and, for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a tcrm u,hicl'r may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees".

¶623

Section 23 of COTP Act, 20O3 reads as ttnder:

¶624

"Forfeiture of advertisement and advertisement

¶625

material:-Where any person has bcen convicted under this Act for thc contravcntion of the provision of section 5, the advertiscmcnt and the advertisement material for cigarcttes and other tobacco products may be forfeitcd to the Government and sur:l.r :rdvertisemcnt and

¶626

'2b

¶627

DT,CSL, J C PNo.9O62 oI 202 I end balch

¶628

advertisemcnt material shall be disposed of in such manner as may bc prescribed by rules made under this Act".

¶629

Section 24(1) of COTP Act, 2003 rcads as under:-

¶630

'Punishment for sale of cigarettes or any other tobacco products in certain places or to persons below the age of eighteen years(1) Any person who contravenes the provisions of section 6 shall be guilty o[ an offcnce under this Act and shall be punishable with fine which may extend to tu,o hundred rupecs".

¶631

The fact that the petitioners were in possession of tobacco products is borne by record. The allegation in some CASES ]S that they wcre merely in possession, in some cases, they wcre transporting and in other cases, they kept the tobacco products fcrr sale.

¶632

A meticulous perusal of the a-fore-mentioned provisions makes it abundantly clear- that the prohibition is not in toto. The COTP Act, 2003 lays down that a^{person is} prohibited from proclucing, supplying or distributing tobacco products directly or indirectly where the^package of those products does not bear a label^{giving specihed}

¶633

¶634

Dr.CSl., J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2O2I ancl batch

¶635

warning in such style and typc prescribed. Section B lays down the manner in^q,hich specific <sup>rarning shall be made. Likewise, Section 9 gives details of the language in which the said specified warning shall be expressed. In the same manner, the size of letters and figures is prescribed under Section 10. It is not tl-re casc of the prosecuting agency that the petitioners were in possession of tobacco products which does not bear such a label in the prescribed manner or in such a lalguagc that is prescribed or in such size of letters and figures that is prescribed. Therefore, it can undoubtedly be held that Section 3 (m) which defines the word "sale", Section 7(2) lr,hich imposes restriction on trade and commerce of tobacco products without there being a prescribed label ol specified warning, Section 7(5) which prohibits production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or any other tobacco products which does not contain a label regarding the nicotine ancl tark content, Section 20(2) u,hich prohibits sale or distribution of cigarettes or tobacco products wl-rich does not contain the specified warning on thc package, attracts to thc facts of the case.

¶636

'2a

¶637

Dt CS,, .J CrlPNo.9062 oI2O2l and bQt<:h

¶638

14 . Coming to the offcnce punishable under Se ction 24(1 ) ol COTP Act, 2003, the said provision makes a person u,ho contrel,encs Scction 6 of the COPT Act punishable. Section 6 of tl-re said Act prohibits sa1e, offer to sell, permit sale of cigarettes or an1, other tobacco products to a person r.r,ho is belorv thc a1le of 18 years or in an area within a rzrdius of 100 yards of a r-ry educational institution.

¶639

Ir.r Crimir.ral Petition Nos.5B94 and 5090 of 202'2, Lhe allegation is that petitioners therein contravened Section 6 of COTP Act, 20O3 which is punishable under Section 2aQ\ thereof. Hoq,ever. the contents of F.I.R. in both the cases does not disclose any mention that the petitioners therein we re either found selling or have sold or promoted the sale of the alieged tobacco products or cigarettes to any person who is belou' the age of 18 years or at an area within a radius of 100 yards of any educational institution. Therefore, the allegation that they have contravened Section 6 of thc COTP Act, 2OO3 and thereby, they are liable to be punished under Section 2a$l thereof^is unsustainablc. Thcrefore, this court considers^{that nonc of}

¶640

-(_-

¶641

¶642

Dr.(lS/,, J CrlPNo.9062 of 202 I and batclt

¶643

the provisions of law under the said legislation i.e., COTP Act, 2003 attracts to the alleged acts committed by the petitioners.

¶644

i6. Though as rightly projected by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the use of cigarettes and allied tobacco products is injurious to health and there is every need to adopt stringent approach for curtailing the said use by the public, to prohibit production, transportation and sale of those products, there is no specific provision in the COTP Act, 2003 which makes such production, transportation and sale of the tobacco products a prohibited offcnce. At the same time, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel on record for the petitioners that as Rs.53,750/- crores of revenue is being generated in the country through the sale of tobacco products, the sarne has to be taken into consideration for disposal of the present criminal petitions. It is not out of place to mention that for treatment of tobacco related diseases, the victims and their families are laying their lives and there are more than eight lakhs causalities every

¶645

¶646

t,tsl. I Oll'N ).t,1)b2 of 2(D I atkl liQlclt

¶647

year in the country due to direct or indirect use o[ tobacco related products which includes cigarettes, chair-ri, gutkha, etc. Also, it is estimated that loss of productivitl, duc to usc of these products is almost Rs.13,5OO/- crores rur nuzrll-y That means, the revenue generated through tl-re tobacco industry is rvorthless in the light of the annual causalities arrd loss of productivity due to use of those products.

¶648

L7. Article 47 of the Constitution of India casts a dutv upon the State to raise the level of nutrition ancl the standald of living of its people. It also states that the State should take steps for improvement of public health as the same is its primar5r duty. It also lays down that the State sha1l endeavour to bring about prohibition of consumpt.ion of intoxicating drinks which are injurious to health. This provision is under Part-IV of the Constitution o[ India which lays down the Directive principles of Stat'e Policy. Basing on the said salutary provision, the legislaturc by its wisdom ought have framed a stringent legislation rvhich prohibits the transportation, stor.rge and sale of the tobacco products. However, such a legislation has not^yct

¶649

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9062 of 2021 and batch

¶650

seen the light of the day. The only iegislation that is invoked time and again is COTP Act, 2003. The said legislation does not prohibit production, supply and transportation of cigarettes and tobacco products in toto. It says that only when package of the products does not contain the label as prescribed, then the possessors of those products would be held liable for punishment. It further covers the circumstances where the said products are being sold to any person u,ho is belou, the age of 18 years or that they are sold within a radius of 1OO yards from any educational institution. If the possession is otherwise, it does not fall within the ambit of the said legislation. None of the acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioners therefore fit to any of the provisions of the COTP Act, 20O3. Therefore, this court holds that the petitioners cannot be held to have committed offences punishable under the provisions of the COTP Act, 20O3.

¶651

lB.Point No.2:-

¶652

Whether the^q.cts of possessing, transporting or selling tobacco products like cigarettes, gutka., chain| etc dttrdct the provisions of the

¶653

:r'2

¶654

Dr.CSL, J Crll'No.9062 of 2O2 I aid batch

¶655

Indiqn Penal Code, 1860 mctre pdrticularlA Sections 188, 269, 27O, 272, 273, 278, 328 redd ulth 511, 336, 4O9 and 42O IPC.

¶656

Apart from the provisior-rs of COTP Act, 2003, the prosecuting agency also allegcd that the petitioners committed offences punishable under different provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Though not collectiveiy, there is an allegation that the petitioners in different cases have committed offences attracting Sections 788, 269, 27O, 272, 273, 278, 328 read with 51 1, 336. 409 and 42O IPC.

¶657

An offence in normai parlallce is an act that rriolates a particular law and requires a particular punishment.

¶658

As per Section 40 of Indian Per-ral Code, an "offence" denotes a thing that is punishable under ttre said Code.

¶659

The version of the prosecuting agency is that by involving in the acts of transporting, storing, selling and alike the tobacco products in huge quantity, the petitioners have committed olfences punishable under the relevant provisions of the Lrdial Pcnal Code, 1860. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the vcrsion of the prosecution 1S

¶660

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 oJ 2O21 arul hatch

¶661

genuine and whether there are any justifiable grounds for the prosecuting agency to continue prosecution against the petitioners in respect of those offences.

¶662

Section 188 IPC makes the person who disobeys the order duly promulgated by public servant punishable. The said provision reads as lollows:-

¶663

"188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.-Whoc',,er, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public scrvant lawfully empowered to promulgate such orclcr, hc is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedicnce causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any pcrson lawfulty employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extcnd to one month or with frne which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and i[ such disobedience causcs or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safctr,., or causes or tends to cause a riot or affra1,, shall be punished with imprisonment of either clescription for a term which may extend to six months, or u,itl-r hne which may cxtend to one thousand rupces, or with both. Explanation.-lt is not ncccssary that thc offender

¶664

¶665

I)r.CSL,.J CrIPNtt.9O(:2 of 2O2l artd batch

¶666

should intend to produce harm, or contemplate hls disobedicnce as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that hc knows of the order wl-rich he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm."

¶667

Therefore, by thc above provision, it is cleal that if an order is promulgated by a public sen/ant who is 1awful1y empo<sup>.ered to promulgate such an order and when a person knor.vingiy disobeys the said order, he would be guilty of the act of disobeying that order and would be liable for pur-rishment Lrnder Section 188 IPC.

¶668

However, in the case on hand, there is nothing on record to shou, that any one of the petitioners against whom such accusation is made had done such an act. Also, there is nothing on record to show that there is any order that is promulgated by the public servant in respect of the activities that were found to have been conducted by the petitioners and are restrained or prevented by the public servant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners Lrnder such a provision is unsustainable in law.

¶669

¶670

Dr.CSL, J C PNo.9O62 of2o21 and. balch

¶671

ln case, any person does an act either unlawfully or negligently which is likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, he shall be held liable under Section 269 IPC. The said provision reads as follows:-

¶672

"Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. -Whoever unlawfully or negligently docs any act which is, and which he knows or has rcason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished rvith imprisonment of either description for a term rvhich may extend to six months, or with hne, or with both.

¶673

[t is not the case of the prosecuting agency that any of the pctitioners against whom such accusation is madc have done any such act either unlawfully or negligently which is likely to spread the infection of any disease dalgerous to life. None of the activities, if any, alleged to have been undertaken by the petitioners like transporting, storing or selling the tobacco products can be termed to be unlar.r,fui or negligent acts which are likely to spread thc infection of any disease dangerous to life. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioners against \,hom such an accusation is madr: u,oul<l be liable for the said offcncc

¶674

¶675

D|.CSL, I CrU'ib-9O{r2 of 202 I ond bcttalt

¶676

27 It is aiso the allegation of the proseculing agency that sorne of the petitioners have involved in the act of spreerding the infection of disease dangerous to life and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 27O IPC.

¶677

Section 27O IPC prescribes punishment for committing malignant acts which are like ly to sprcad infection of disease dangerous to life. The said provision reads as under:-

¶678

"Malignant act likely to siread infection of disease dangerous to tife.-Whocvcr maligr:rrnt l5 does any act which is, and which he knows or h,rs reason the believe to be, likely to spread thc infection ol any disease dangerous to li[e, sl-rall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or rlith fine, or with both."

¶679

Though use of tobacco products reportedly is said to cause diseases like cancer etc., spread of infection througi-t use of tobacco products or by sale of tobacco^productsis not reported an5 Vhere. Even the learned Assistalt Publi<: Prosecutor failed to state how the acts alleged to h;rve beetr committed by the petitioners falls within the ambit of

¶680

¶681

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo 9062 oJ 2O21 aw1 batch

¶682

Section 270 IPC. No material whatsoever is on record to show that either possessing or selling or transporting the tobacco products like gutka, etc., would spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life. Therefore, this court is of the view that quoting of the said provision and booking a case with an allegation that the acts committed by the petitioners would fall within the ambit of the said provision of law is unsustainable.

¶683

It is also alleged that some of the pctitioners have involved in the process of adulteration. The process of adulteration would mean making the said article which is subjected to adulteration noxious. Though the word 'adulteration' and 'adulterant' are not specifically defined in ttre Indian Penal Code, 1860, we can find the definition of 'adulterant' in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Section 3(a) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 delines what an 'adulterant' mears, It reads as under:-

¶684

"adulterant" means any material rvhich is or could be employed for making the food unsafe or substandard or mis-brandcd or corrtaining cxt.rancous matter-"

¶685

¶686

1)r.CSL,,i ()1PNo.9O62 of 2O2 1 ond batch

¶687

3 i. Therefore, it is to be shor,r,n that some article or material is employed in some other article u,hich is intended to be used as food or drink to make the same unsa-fe and noxious for consumption. Section 272 IPC reads as under: .

¶688

*Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.-Whoever adulterates any articlc of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as lood or drink, intending to sell such articlc as food or drink or knowing it to be likely tl'rat thc samc will be sold as food or drink, shall bc punishcd with imprisonment of either dcscription lor er term which may extend to six months, or wit,h finc which may extend to one thousand rupces, or rvith both."

¶689

There is no material on record to show that the persons against whom such an allegation i.e., that they have committed the offence punish;rble under Section 272 IPC is made, have used or employed any material in an article which is to be used for consumption as^{food or} drink so as to make the said article unsafe^{or sub-standard} or noxious. Therefore, this court^{l-rolds that invoking the} said provision is bad in lau,.

¶690

,:] o

¶691

Dr.CSL, J CrtPNo.9062 of 2O21 and batch

¶692

It is also the allegation that some of the petitioners were involved in selling of noxious food and thereby, committed offence punishable under Section 273 lPC. Section 273 IPC reads as under:

¶693

'Sale^{of noxious food or drink.-Whoeversells, or} offers or exposes lor salc, as food or drink, any article which has becn rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state r-rnfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or u,ith Iine which may extend to one thousand rupecs, or with both."

¶694

Though the word 'food'is not defined in Indian Penat Code, 1860, we can get thc definition of 'food' from the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Section 3(1') of tJle Food Safety and Standards Act, 20O6 defrnes the word 'food'. It is incumbent^{at least to prima} facie^projectthat the article which was found in possession of the petitioners was offered for sale or exposed lor sale and the said food has become noxious or is in a state unfit to use as food or drink. Admittedly, the articles that were seized from the possession of the petitioners does not fall within the ambit of the definition either 'food'or tlrink'. Therefore, this court

¶695

4{J

¶696

l)r.CSl.,,l C PNo-9O62 of202l und batch

¶697

holcls thal none of thc petitioners would becomc liable for the punishrnent prcscribed under Section 273 IPC Therefore, initiation of procecdings against the petitioners for the said oifence does not hold good.

¶698

It is not zrt all the version of the prosecuting agency that the acts of the petitioners had made the atmosphere noxious to health. Without any averment to that effect, the prosc:cuting agency alleged that some of the petitioners hereitr have committed the offence punishable under Secti<rn 27a IPC, which reads as under:-

¶699

"Making^atmosphere noxious to health.-Whoever voluntarily vitiatcs the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the^,health of persons in gcneral dwe lling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way, shall bc punished with line which may extend to five hundred rupees."

¶700

No provision in any legislation, rule or regulation^is brought to the notice of this court u'hich lays that^the storage of articles like gutka or other tobacco^products vitiates the atmospherc of the said place so as to^{make it} noxious to the hcalth of^persons in^{general dwelling or}

¶701

.+l

¶702

Dr.CSl,, J CrU'No.9062 of 20) I a\d b(ttch

¶703

carrying on business in the neighbourhood or for those persons who rn,ould pass along a public way. Without there being at lcast a whisper to that effect, making a mcntron of the said provision in the F.l.R. and contending that the casc fits into that provision cannot be appreciated. 37. [t is also the allegation that some of the petitioners have attempted to commit the offence punishable under Section 328 lPC. Section 328 IPC reads as under:

¶704

"Causiug hurt by^means of^poison, etc., with intent to commit and offence.-Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwhole some drug, or other ttring with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

¶705

For bringing the case within the ambit of the said provision, it is incumbent to show that the person/persons with an intention to cause hurt have administered or have caused any person to take the following materials:

¶706

poison or

¶707

¶708

tr.csL .t ( ,ll'!';o rOti )- t)l -)0 ll a,1d l)a[:11

¶709

stupefying drug or

¶710

intoxicating drug or

¶711

unr,r,holesome drug or

¶712

other thing.

¶713

The above acts must hdve been done n,ith an intention to cause hurt to 5us5 lperson against rvhom the said act is committed or with in intention to commit or I facilil ate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be i lilcely that he will thereby cause hurt. Mere transportation/ possession/ sale of tobacco prod]ucts does ,l not meal that i they u,ere intended to be stered to any person or perso)is with an intention to iause hurt. Therefore, the investigating agency grossly erred in booking a case irgainst the petitioners herein under the said provision. Even a charge for attempting to commit the said offence i.e.,^the offence under Section 328 readi^{with 511 IPC cannot be} appreciated.

¶714

It is also the case of the^{prosecutingagency that} the petitioners have committed^{acts endangering life or} personal safety of others falling within^{the ambit of Sc<:tion} 336 lPC. Section^{336 IPC readsas under:-}

¶715

¶716

Dr CSl,, J Crll'No 9062 of 202 I etd batch

¶717

"Act endangering life or personal safety of others.-Whoever does any acl so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished rvith imprisonment of either description for a term whicl.t may extend to three months or with fine u,hich may extend to two hundred and fifty Irpees, or u,ith both."

¶718

Which act or acts were done rashly or ncgligentl_y by the petitioners so as to endanger human lifc or personal safety of others is not stated an1,'vvh e re. Rashness is not even remotely shown and negligence is not projected. As earlier discussed, no rule or regulation is brought to tl-re notice of this court regarding the trarsportation/ storage/ sale of tobacco products. Therefore, this cottrt holds that the petitioners cannot be held to have comm itted the offence punishable under Section 336 IPC.

¶719

It is not the case of the prosecuting agency that the petitioners in the capacity of public servants or in the course of doing the business as bankers, rnerchants, factors, brokers, attorneys or agellts comrnitled the offencc o[ criminal breach of trust, rvhich u,ould lall witl'rin rhc ambit of Section 4O9 IPC. Section 409 IPC reads as under:-

¶720

¶721

1)r.CSL, J a.rlPNo.9062 of 2021 and botclt

¶722

"Criminal breach of trust by^{public servant, or by}

¶723

banker, merchant or agent.-Whoever, beir-rg in any manner cntrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capaci{ of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attbrney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that propcrty, shalt be punished with imprisonment for lifc, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

¶724

Thus, only if a person is entr-usted with property or

¶725

with any dominion over the property and such person in

¶726

his capacity either as

Public servant or

Banker or

Merchant or

Factor or

Broker or

Attorney or

Agent

commits criminal breach of trust^{in respect of the}

¶735

entrusted property, he would be^{termed to have committed} the offence of criminal^{breachof trust fallingwithinthe}

¶736

¶737

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9062 of2O2I and bdtch

¶738

ambit of section 4O9 IPC- It is not thc case r,r,ith any of the petitioners herein. Therefore, the prosecuting agency went wrong in invoking the said provision of law.

¶739

Finally, it is also alleged that some of the petitioners have committed tire offence punishablc under Section 420 IPC which deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The said provision reads as under:-

¶740

'Cheating^{and dishoaestlyinducing deliveryof} property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, altcr or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable securily, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

¶741

The word 'cheating' is defined under section 4 15

¶742

IPC. The said provision reads as under:-

¶743

"Cheating.-Whoever,^{by de ceiving any person,} fraudulently or dishonestly induccs the person so deceived to deliver any propcrty to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or inter-rtionally induces the person so dcccived to do or omit to do anything whicl.r he would not do or

¶744

¶745

DT.CSI-, J C.LPNo.9062 of2O21 aad batclt

¶746

omit ii he were noL so deceived, and which act or omission c:ruses or is likely to cause damage or harm to that pcrson in bocly, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

¶747

Which person was deceived fraudulently or dishonestly and which person so deceived was ordered to deliver any properq/ or to consent to do so is not stated anylvhere. Even an omission in that regard which is prohibited is not projected any.where. It is not the case of the prosecuting agency that the person so deceived was induced to deliver any property or do any other acts falling within the ambit of Section 42O IPC. For what reason the said provision \r/as invoked is not even stated by the Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Therefore, the prosecuting agen cy grossly erred in invoking the said provision of law.

¶748

The entire version of the investigating agency is that the petitioners were involved in the business of tobacco possessing/ transporting/ storing/ selling of producl,s like gutka, chaini, etc. There is no whisper that the said products rvere banned by the competent^authority. No legislation is brought to the notice of this court to show

¶749

¶750

Dr.CSL. .l CrlPNo.9O62 of 2021 and batch

¶751

that possession of tobacco products uiz., gltka and alike and involving in the business of selling those products is banned and committing such acts is declared as disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant, or that the acts committed would amounts to public nuisance or those acts are likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life, or noxious for consumption as food or drink whose sale is prohibited, or that possession of tobacco products makes the atmosphere noxious to health, or there was an attempt to administer those products to any person with an intention to cause hurt, or that those acts amounts to rashly or negligently endangering life or personal safety of others or arnounts to criminai breach of trust or cheating. Therefore, the provisions invoked uz., Sections L88, 269, 27O, 272, 273, 278,328 read with 511, 336, 409 and 42O IPC does not attract to the bundle of facts that are projected by the investigating agency.

¶752

¶753

Dr.(:S1., J Crll'No.9t)l>2 o{ 2{)2 I aid bel.lt

¶754

47.Point No.3:-

¶755

Whether either transporting or selling or possessing tobacco products like cigarettes, gutka, clarrini, etc dttracts Section 59(1) of Food Safetg and Standards Act, 20O6.

¶756

It is also alleged by the prosecuting agency that some of the petitioners contravened spction 59(1) of the Food Safct5r and Standards Act, 20O6. ,

¶757

The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is a consolidation of iaws reiating to fpod in the country rvhich lays down the basic standards for articles of food and to regulatc their manufacture, sto rage, distribution and sale so as to ensure safety and wholesomeness of fbod for human consumption. Section 59(l) of the Food Safety and St:urdards Act, 2006 prescribed punishment for manufacture or sale or storage or: distribution or import of any article of food for human consumption which is unsale.

¶758

49 - The version of the prosecuting agency is that some of the petitioners are liable for^punishment under^section 59(l ) of the Food Safety and Standards Act,^{2006.The said} provision reads as under:-

¶759

¶760

t)r.CSl.. J CrlPNo.9062 of 2O2l @vl balch

¶761

"Punishment for unsafe food.-Any person u,ho, whether by himself or by any other person on h is behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,(i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment lor a term wl]ich may extend to six months and also with fine u,hich may extend to one lakh rupees."

¶762

As rightly projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners, to bring the case within the ambit of the said provision i.e., Section 59(l), it has to be established that the articles found in the possession of the petitioners lalls within the ambit of the definition "food" as defined in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Section 3(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2O06 defines what "food" means and reads as under:-

¶763

'Food" means any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes primary food to the extent defined in clause (zk), genetically modihed or engineered food or food containing such ingredients, inlant lood, packaged drinking water, alcoholic drink, chewing gum, and any substance, including rvater uscd into the food during its manufacture, preparation ur Lrelltrrcnt

¶764

¶765

l.)r.CSl,, J (:dJ'No 91)6'2 of 2021 ?dt,d balclt

¶766

but does not include any animal feed, Iivc anintals unless they are prepared or processed for placing on the market for human consumption, plar-rts, prior to harvesting, drugs and medicir-ral products, cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic substances: Provided that the Central Govcrnrnent may declzrre, by notification in the Oflicial Gazette, any othcr article as food for the purposes of this Act having regards to its use, nature, substance or quality."

¶767

Indicating a view that the tobacco products docs not fall within the ambit of the terrn "food", thc Higlr Corrrt of Andhra Pradesh in the case betu,ecn Jaganath Enterprises, Elurtt Vasadhi Tripati Rao Vs. State oJ A.P. through SHO Pamur P.S., Prakasam District reptd bg Public Prosecutor, High Court dt AmaraDath at paras 11 to 14 of the order held as under:

¶768

"11. The first and foremost issue tc, bc decided is thc applicability of the FSS Act to tobacco/tobacco products and the definition of 'foc,d'. Section 3fi) ot the FSS Act, dehnes 'food' as a substzrnce, which is intended for human consumption containing such ingredients as described in the said definition. Thc definition does not inclucle aninral fced, livc animals etc. It also eliminates thc applicability of narc<,rtic and psychotropic substanccs, Ak;ol'rol is aIr itern

¶769

| 2o20ltl ALT (Crl) 215 (S.8.)

¶770

¶771

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9062 of 2O21 aftd hotch

¶772

which is included in I he clefinition of^'food'. The COTPA Act, which is passed in 2OO3 (Act. No. 34 of 2OO3) on the other hand defines in section 3(p) of the Act, the tobacco products. Thc definition states that the products specified in the Schedule are tobacco products and the Scheclule lists out 1O items as tobacco products- They are reproduced here under:

THE SCHEDULE

Section3(p)

l.Cigarettes

2.Cigars

3-Cheroots

4.Beedis

S.Cigarette tobacco, pipe tobacco and hookah tobacco

¶780

6.Chewing tobacco

¶781

T.Snuff

¶782

8.Pan masala or any chewing material having tobacco as one of its ingredients (by Whatever name called).

¶783

9.gutkha

¶784

lO.Tooth power containing tobacco.

¶785

l2.Cigarettes, Chewing tobacco, Pan Masala, Chewing material with tobacco arc included in the tobacco products. Therefore, a plima t:rcie reading of these Central enactments makes it clcar that tobacco products arc only dehrrcd under the COTPA Act and not under the FSS Act. Thc l,'SS Act, only talks of^'food', wlrich is intcndcd for human

¶786

¶787

l.)r.CSL,,l CrU'No.9O62 ol 2O21 attd bdtclt

¶788

corlsumptiorl, \vhich includcs in it alcoholic drink, but clocs nclt inclurlc any narcotic or psychotropic :;ul)starlcc.

¶789

i3. Tl're next section thnt falls for consideration is, Section 56 of tl-rc F'SS Act, which talks of penalty for unhygicnic or unsaLnitary process for manufacture o[ 'lood'. Scction 57 of the FSS Act, provides for the penalty for a person, who mixes al adulterant with tire food. Adultcrant is described and dehned in Section 3(l)(a) ol thc F'SS Act, as 'a material used or could bc uscd for making^'food' unsafe/substandard etc. Therefore, this section, in the opinion of this Court, could only come into play when 'food' is adulterated. Section 58 of the FSS Act, is a general provision, which provides penalty for contraventions for rvhich no other penalty is providecl. Section.S9 of l-hc FSS Act, deals with the penal$ [<rr any person who manufactures or sale, store, and distributcs any article of 'unsafe food' for hurnan consumption. Scction 63 of the FSS Act, deals with the punishment for a person or food business operator, who manufactures, stores any article of 'food' without licence . Therefore, it is clear from a reading of the scctions, which are being pressed ir-rto scrvice by the prosecution time and again uncler the FSS Act, thirt all of them relate to 'lood' :rnd 'lood articles' or-rlv. The sections, which have bcen pressed into scrvice, in l-he opinion of this Coi.rrt, do not appl1. to an article which is not mer:ting the dehnition of food. Section 89 of the FSS

¶790

¶791

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2O21 and batch

¶792

Act, also provides that it shall have a overriding effect from all other food related laws. Apart from a plain gramn'ratical meaning which is supporting the decision taken by this Court on the definition of 'food', the decisions of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in M/ s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt.) Ltd., and another v. State of U.P. {2OI1(21^{Crimes 250} squarely appliesto the facts} and circurnstances o[ this case. The learned Judges of the Allahabad Court have analysed various sectior-rs of law bcing pressed into service in that case and concluded that the FSS Act applies only to

¶793

'food' and food items.

¶794

A learncd singlc Judge ol the Calcutta High Court in the casc of Sanjay Anjay Stores v. Union of lndia and others {2017 Manu/WB/0846} also came to the conclusion that tobacco is not a food stuff. Rclying upon thc provisions of the FSS Act, and the other enactments, the learned Judge of tJle Calcutta High Court came to the conclusion that tiese articles are not food for the FSS Act to be pressed into service. In fact, the learned single Judge of this Court in thc batch of criminal petitions referred to has also come to the very same conclusion. 'fhcreaftcr, relying upon Sections 4l and 42 of the FSS Act and after considering the law on the subject, the learned singlc Judge came to the conclusion that thc Inspcctor of police or thc sub inspector of police do not have the authority to investigatc or to file a chargc shect. He held and

¶795

¶796

I),.CS/.,./ UlPNo.r)O(t2 ol 2O21 utld bok:lt

¶797

rightly so that it is only the Food Safe ty Officcr, who is competent to launch a prosecution for the offe nce urrrler the FSS Act. I)espite this authorit:rtivc pronor] ncemetr t of this Court; the status quo continues."

¶798

Narcotic and psychotropic substances werc kept out of the ambit of the term "foodz specifically. it is clearly indicated that they do not fall within the ambit of the tern'r "looci". A lood item means a substance intended 1o be usecl for iunran consumption either as a prima11, food orgenetically modilied or engineered food. Tobacco products in r.r'hatever form they may be, does not therelbre fall within the ambit of the term "food". Therefore, invokin,l Section 59(l) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 200(r against the petitioners is undesirable.

¶799

53.Point No.4:

¶800

Whether there exlsts ang justifrable grounds to lnvoke the pouer grdnted to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners ds prdged for.

¶801

Corning to the power of court to quash an<l exercisc of such a power in deserving cases, the Hon'ble supremc

¶802

¶803

Dr CSL, ..1 CrlPNo.9O62 ol 2021 and lntch

¶804

court in the case between Stqte of Hd.ryana Vs Bhajanlal.t

¶805

ilt paras 108 and 109 of the judgment observed as under::

¶806

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Cl-rapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Coclc which we have extracted and reproduced above, u,e give the foilowing categories of cases by rvay of illustration wherein such power could be exerciscd either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inllexiblc guidelines or rigid formulae and to givc an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases rvherein such power should be exercised

¶807

1 . Where the allegations made in the F irst lnformation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and acceptcd in thcir entirety do not prima facie constitute any oflence or make out a case against the accused

¶808

Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompzrnying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizablc ollence, justifying an investigation by police officers unclcr SecLion 156 (1) of the Code except undcr an order of

¶809

1 tggt scc lcrt.) +u

¶810

5(r

¶811

J^Jt t r;t...1 ( r li'iit t tt|rt?, ol 20) I tttrl lxtl< 1t

¶812

a Magistrate within the purvicw ol Sectior.r 155(2) of the Code

¶813

Where the uncontroverted allegations madc ilr^1lle FIR or complaint and thc cvidence collcctecl ill support of the same do not clisclose the comnrission of any offence and make out a casc against the accused

¶814

Where, the allegations in the F.l.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitutc onl-y a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is pcrmittcd by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Codc 5. Where the allegations mado in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inhr:rently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is suficicnt ground for proceeding against the accused

¶815

Where there is an express legal bar cngrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concen-red Act (under which a criminal proce eding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of t he proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or tho concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievancc of the a ggrieved party

¶816

Where a criminal proceeding is manifcsLly attended with mala fidc arrd/ or whcrc^the proceeding is maliciously institutr:d wil-tr zrn^r-rltt'rjor motive for wreaking vengeancc ot.t thc accusccl and

¶817

¶818

Dr.CSL, J Crl?No.9O62 of 2O21 and batclr

¶819

with a view to spite him due to^{privaLeand personal} grudge

¶820

1O9. We also give a note of caution to the eflect that t1.e power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified ir-r cmbarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuincness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.[.R. or thc complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice."

¶821

By all the discussion that u,er-rt on in the preceding points, it is clear tJlat the prosecuting agency could not lit its case to any of the provisions invoked either under Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 or Indian Penal Code, 1860 or the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

¶822

The provisions which are enumerated in the preceding points are pressed into service routinely. No provision is shou,n which prohibits transportation and sale of gutka, pan masala, chaini, etc. Though it is clcarly

¶823

¶824

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2O2l and batch

¶825

brougl-rt to thc noticc of this court that various types of disezrses including cardiac arrest,^(lancer, etc., are being caused due to consumption of tobacco and tobacco related products and that in the interests of public health, there is every requirenrent to ban the use of those products, without a-ny legislation to that effect, the court cannot make the persons involved in those activities liable. Though COTP Act n'as legislated so as to deal with and to regulate the use of tobacco products, except regulating the marner of packing and the label to be present over the packages, saie to minors and near educational institutions, the COTP Act does not envisages the complete ban on use of those products. It is not the case of the prosecuting agency in any of the cases that the specified warning (pictorial or otherwise) is not present over the products that were seized. Malignance in the activities of the petitioners is not projected. Thus, havirrg regard to the setfled legal position on exercls;e of jurisdiction and power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ar-rd thc specific facts of this case, this court is of thc considered opinion that exercise of

¶826

¶827

Dr CSt. J CrtPNo.9O62 o{ 2O2 t and batcll

¶828

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is essential to prevent abuse of process of law-

¶829

Therefore, the ultimate^conclusion of this court^is that unless and until a comprehensive legislation either regarding the ban or restricted use of the tobacco products and regulating their production, trade and supply is brought into force, though it is universally recogrrised that use of tobacco products is injurious to health, the persons dealing with those products cannot be booked under law. 57. Resultantly, all the Criminal Petitions are a-llowed. Thereby, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the respective cases are quashed. The property and the vehicles, if any, seized shall be returned to the lawful claimants by the Police concerned, following due procedure.

¶830

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶831

so/-K.sRrNrvAsA nAo I JOINT REGISTRAR ITRUECOPYfi u^/ SECTION OfFICER

¶832

ONE FAtR COPY TO THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA (FOR HIS LORDSHIPS KIND PERUSAL)

¶833

To,

¶834

The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sircilla

¶835

The Judiclal Firsl. Class Magistrate. atHuzurnagar, Nagonda

¶836

3 The Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Nalgonda

¶837

¶838

d The ll nddrtional .ludrcral First CIaSS fu{agrstrate at Miryalguda 5. t he Judicral Frsl Cliiss Maqr5trate.at Miryalguda 6 Thc Special Judicral First Clas;s Magistrate Prohibition and Excjse at l\lalgonda Oistricl

¶839

1. I he XXV l\4etropolitan t\ragistrate at Rachakonda at lbrahimpatnam 8. Ihe Principal Judicial First Class Magistrale at L,liryalguda 9. I he Juoior Civrl Judllew cum Judicial First Class Magisrate, at Adilabad 10 The XIX Munsif Magistrate Kukatpally, Cyberabad 11.The Additjonal Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy 12 The Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Kalwakurthy ' 13. fhe Judacial Chief Judge cum XXVII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Hyderabad 14- fhe lX Additional Chief Munsif Magistrate Hyderabad 'I5- The Judicial First Class Magislrate, at Medak 16. The XVll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad 17. thc Il Additional Judicial First Class Magistate, Khammam 18. The Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sirpur (T) Komrambheem Asifabad Oistrict

¶840

19.The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Prohibition and Excise cum lll Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Sangareddy District

¶841

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate. at Kodad, Suryapet 21. The Vll Additional Chief Munsif Magistrate at Hyderabad 22 The Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy Disrict 23. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Manugur, Bhadradi Kothagudem ?4 25 The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bellampalli

¶842

26 The Xlll Munsit^{Magistrate Kukalpally, Cyberabad}

¶843

I he Vll,^Additronal Chief^{MunsifMagistrate Hyderabad}

¶844

28 The XVI^{Ad(iilional MunsifMagistrate Cyberabad at RaiendraNagar,} Cyberabad

¶845

1 he Judicial^{FirstClass Magistrate Narayankhed,SangareddyDiskicl}

¶846

30 lhe Station House^{Officer,Ellanthankunta Police Station, RajannaSiricilla}

¶847

The Station House^{Offlcer Nereducheda Police Statioo Suryapet}

¶848

32 The Statroo House^{Officer,NalgondalTown Police Station Nalgonda} 33. The Station House Officer^{Wadapally Police Station Nalgonda District} 34.The Station House fficer^{Miryalguda ll Town Police Station Nalgonda} 35 The Station House Officer, Nalgonda^{ll Town PoliceStation Nalgonda} 36. The Station House Officer, Rachakonda^{PoliceStation. Rachakonda,} 37.The Station House Officer Advidevulapplly^{Police Station, Nalgonda}

¶849

The Station House Officer, Adilabad I Tc'wn^{PoliceStation, Adilabarl}

¶850

39 The Station House Officer Chandrangar Police^{Slation,RRDistrict}

¶851

The Station House Officer, Kadthal Police Station,^Cyberabad

¶852

41 Ttre Station House Ofiicer, Amangal Police Station, Amangal^RROistrict

¶853

42 Thc Station House Officer, Maheswaram Police Station, Rachakonda.^RRt)istricl

¶854

43 The Station House Officer, Chikkadapalli Police Station, Chikkadpally.Hyderabad

¶855

44 Ilre Statron House Ofl'icer Ramachandrapuram Police Stalion, Ramachandrapuram Sangareddy District

¶856

The Station House Officer Ramayampet Police Station Medak District

¶857

The Station House Officer Malkajgiri Police Station Malkajgiri Cyberabad

¶858

47 The Staliofl House Officer Khammam Rural Police Station Khammarn^District

¶859

The Station House Officer Kaghaznagar Town Police Station^Komrambheem Asifabad District

¶860

The Station House Officer, Patancheru Police Station, Patancheru,^Sangareddy Dastrict

¶861

The Station House Officer, Kodad To,vn Police Station^{Kodad,Nalgonda}

¶862

51 . The Station House Officer, Santhosh Nagar Police Station ,^{SanthoshNagar,} Hyderabad

¶863

52 The Station House Officer Zaheerabad Rural Police Station , Sangareddy District

¶864

The Slation House Officer, Munuguru Police Station,^Munuguru

¶865

54 The Station House Officer, Bellampally lTown Police^Station ,^Bellampally, Ramagudam

¶866

55 The Station House Officer, Balanagar Police Station, Cyberabad

¶867

The Station House Officer, Chaderghat Police Station, Chaderghat,^Hyderabad 57.Ihc Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station Radurgam^{RR Dist.rct}

¶868

58 The Station llouse Oflicer Manoor Police Station, Narayanakhed^Sangareddy Oist.ict

¶869

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at^{Hyderabad (OtlT)}

¶870

60.Orre CC to SRl. BALA NTURALI Y Advocate [OPUC]

¶871

61.one CC to SRl. Praveen Kumar Veerjala Advocate [OPUC]

¶872

One CC to SRI Nanda Kishore Yadav Advocate IOPUCI 63. One CC to SRI Srinivas Reddy Balakisli Advo,rate IOPUC] 64. One CC to SRI R. Prasad Advocate [OPUCI 65. One CC to SRI Gajanand Chakravarlhy Advocate [OPUC] 66 One CC to SRI Ravi Chandra Shekhar Advoc3te [oPUC] 67 One CC to SRI Boggula Raju Advocate {OPUCI 64. Two CD Copies 65.8 L.R. Copies 66.The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry o: Law , Justice and Company Affairs , New Delhi

¶873

The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Assoaiation, Library, Higlr Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

^v.,(\

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1 4/07 12022

[ 1 si? 2U22

COMMON ORDER

AND 607, 2633. 2634, 2636, 2892, 2900, 4980, 4987, 5035, s0s2, 5071, 5075, 5078, 5090, 5804, 5805, 5806, 1, 5836,5859, 5867, 5894,5910, 5953, 5983, 5985, 6034,6056, 6058 AND 6105 0F 2022

¶880

ALLOWING THE ALL CRIMINAL PETITIONS

¶881

5
w
l .-\Y

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah v. The State of Telangana and another

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

Mohammed Mushtaq Malik Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Batch Satish Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Kothuri Yellaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Burra Lingaiah alias Satheesh Vs The State of Telangana

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana