Allowed

Burra Lingaiah alias Satheesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Jul 2022CRLP/2639/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order in 33 criminal petitions seeking quashing of FIRs and charge sheets alleging possession, transportation and sale of gutka, khaini and other tobacco products. The High Court held that the COTP Act, 2003, the IPC provisions invoked and Section 59(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 were not attracted, 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 lawful claimants by the police concerned following due procedure.

Burra Lingaiah alias Satheesh Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 9062 AND 9554 OF 2021 AND 607, 2633. 2634, 2636, 2639, 2A16, 2A92, 2900, 4980, 4987, 5035, 5052, 507'l , 5075, 5078, 5090, 5804, 5805, 5806, 581 1 , 5836, 5859, 5867, 5894, 5910, 5953, 5983, 5985, 6034, 60s6, 6058 AND 610s OF 2022

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION.NO 9062OF 2021:

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kuru Vijay Kumar, S/o Ramalingam, Aged about 23 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Venkataraopalli Ellanthakunta Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶9

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

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 AND 2

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No. 330 of 2021 pending on the file of Ellanthankunta Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District against the Petitioners

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the seized property in FIR No. 33O of 2021 pending on the file of Ellanthankunta Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District in favour of the Petitioners

¶18

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

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9554 OF 2021

¶20

Between:

¶21

.1 . Alampalli Satheesh S/o tvlurali, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o Venkataram.rna Colony, D.V.K.Road, Nalgonda Town and District.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 3

¶25

AND

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶29

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.457 2020 pending on the file of Honble Judicial Firs;t Class Magistrate at Huzurnagar against the petitioners

¶30

l.A. NO: 1 OF 202'l

¶31

Petition undr:r Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances slated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition.the High Court may be^pleased to direr:t the respondents to release the seized^property in CC No. 451of 2O2O pending on the file of Honble Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Huzurnagar in favo rr of the Petitioners

¶32

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

¶33

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 607 OF 2022

¶34

Between:

¶35

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah, S/o Musalaiah Aged about 60 years. Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.4-'l 1-4-4, Chaithanyapuri Colony, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District, Telangana.

¶36

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2

¶37

AND

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶41

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 quash the proceedings in CC NO. 1138 of 2020 on the file of Honourable Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nalgonda in so far as the petitioner/A-2 is concerned

¶42

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶43

Petition under Section 482 o'f 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 appearance of the petitioner/A-2 in CC NO.^'1'1 38 of 2O2O on the file of Judicial First Class I/agistrate at Nalgonda

¶44

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

¶45

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2633 OF 2022

¶46

Between:

¶47

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah, S/o Musalaiah Aged about 58 years, Occ Business, F|/o H.No-4-1 1-404, Chaithanyapuri Colony, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District, Telangana.

¶48

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶49

AND

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

-..RESPONDENT/COM PLAI NANTS

¶53

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC NO.1409 of 2021 on the file of

¶54

Honble Judicial First CIass Magistrate at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District against the petitioner

¶55

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶56

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

¶57

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶58

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 appearance of the petitioner in CC NO.1409 of 2021 on the file of Honble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

¶59

This Petition comirrg 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

¶60

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2634 OF 2022

¶61

Between:

¶62

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah, S/o lMusalaiah Aged about 58 years, Occ Rl/o H.No.4-1 1- 404, Chaithanyirpuri Colony, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District, Telangana.

¶63

... PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶64

AND

¶65

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

¶66

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

¶67

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶68

Petition un(ler Seclion 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlerrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to qLrash the proceedings in FIR No.26 of 2022 on the file of Nalgonda I Town l)olice Station. Nalgonda District agaanst the petitioner

¶69

l.A. NO: 1OF 202',1

¶70

Petition untjer Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [,4enrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron,the High Court may

¶71

be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the FIR No.26 of 2022 on the file of Nalgonda I Town Police Station, Nalgonda District

¶72

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶73

Petition under Section 482 o{ 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 seized property in FIR No.26 o'f 2022 on the file of Nalgonda I Town Police Station, Nalgonda District in favour of the petitioner

¶74

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the [Vlemorandum 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

¶75

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2636 OF 2022

¶76

Between:

¶77

Burra Lingaiah @ Kirana Sathish, Slo lMuthaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ Business R/o H.No.3-33, lvlarriguda, Nalgonda. Telangana.

¶78

...PETITIONERYACCUSED No.2

¶79

AND

¶80

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

¶81

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

¶82

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶83

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\Iemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No.263 of 2019 pending on the file of Hon'ble ll Additional Judicial First Class lt4agistrate at [Miryalguda in so far as the Petitioner/A-2 is concerned

¶84

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶85

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 appearance of the petitionerlA-2 in CC No.263 of 2019, pending on the file of Hon'ble ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalguda

¶86

¶87

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2639 OF 2022

¶88

Between:

¶89

Burra Lingaiah alias Satheesh, S/o Muthaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ Business Rio H.\o 3-33, l,4arriguda Village, Nalgonda District, Telangana.

¶90

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2

¶91

AND

¶92

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

¶93

2 The Sub-lnspector of Police, Miryalguda ll Town Police Station, Nalgonda District

¶94

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶95

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\4emrrrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quas,h the proceedings in CC NO. 124 of 2022, pending on the file of Honourable Ju<licial First Class Magistrate at Miryalguda in so far as the Petitioner/A-2 is co ncerned

¶96

I.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶97

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\lemtrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to s:ay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/A-2 in C(l NO. 124 of 2022, pending on the file of Honourable Judicial Fit Class l,4agistrat: at tt4iryalguda

¶98

This Petition comirrg on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BALA t\4URALl y, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶99

CRIMINAL PETITIC;N NO: 2816 OF 2022

¶100

Between:

¶101

Burra Lrngaiah, S/o Il,4uthaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot.No.26,27.^()ld V.T.colony, Nalgonda, N/o. Marrigudem village,Nalgonda mandal. Telangeina

¶102

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2

¶103

AND

¶104

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

¶105

The Sub-lnspector of Police, Nalgonda ll town^{PoliceStation, Nalgonda} District

¶106

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶107

Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to quash the^proceedings in CC^No.1 357 of^{2021 pending on the f ile} of Honble SPL.Judicial First Class^{Magistrate(for prohibitionand excise)at} Nalgonda in so far as the Petitioner/A-2 is concerned

¶108

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶109

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C^praying that in^{the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the HighCourt may} be^pleased to stay all further^{proceedings including appearance of the} petitioner/A-2 in CC No.1357 oI 2021,^pending on the tile of Honble SPL....Judicial First Class lt4agistrate^{(for prohibition and excise) at Nalgonda}

¶110

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^{perusing the Memorandum of Grounds} of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri BALAMURALIY,} Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on^{behalf of the} Respondents

¶111

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2892 OF²⁰²²

¶112

Between:

¶113

Pola Veeresh Kumar, S/o Krishnaiah, Aged about^{44 yearc.Occ.Business,} R/o^'1-76, Uppariguda, Alimiyakunta, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga^{Reddy District,} Telangana

¶114

Amaravad Santhosh Kumar, S/o A. Ravinder, Aged about 30^years, Occ,Business, RJo H.No.2-106, Chowderpally Village, Yacharam^lt4andal, R.R District

¶115

...PETITIONERYACCUSED 1 and 2

¶116

AND

¶117

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

¶118

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

¶119

.,.RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANTS

¶120

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum 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-1} and A-2 are concerned

¶121

t.A. NO: 1 0F 2022

¶122

Petition under^{Section 482 of Cr'P C praying that in the circumstances} statedinthelr,4emorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition'theHighCourtmay [" p[rt.J^{pf"asedto direct the respondentsto releasethe seized propertyin} iia r.ro.sa oi zozz^{of lbrahimpatna,(ncr;Police Station' Rachakonda in favour} of the petitioners

¶123

This Petition comitrg^{on for hearing,upon perusing the IVemorandumof Grounds} of Criminat^{Petitiorl and uponheiring the arguments of Sri BALAMURALIY'} Advocate for the^{Petitioner and the PublicProsecutor on behalf of the} Respondents

¶124

CRIMINAL PETI^{TltfN NO:2900 0F 2022}

¶125

Between:

¶126

1 . Amaravad^{rsanthosh Kumar,S/o Ravinder'Aged.} .^{about 30} years, Occ rjr.ln".i, Fl/o^{H.No.2-'106,Chowderpally Village'Yacharam} It4andal, R.R District, Telangana.

¶127

2 Pola Veeret;h Kumar,^{S/o Krishnaiah,Aged about 44.years' 9cc-Business'} iv" r:io'iipprtigrti,-nlirlviiunta,'ro'ir'itpatnam'^{Ranga Reddv District'} Telangana.

¶128

3 J. Santhoslr, S/o^{J. Narshimaiah,Aged about 38 years'Occ'B-uslness'Fl/o} f.f.ir" a"tn, ,p1f",^{Viifag",.'N;ibOu"cnenaNilandai.Nalgonda District - 508} 218

¶129

4 GundaVanaia,W/oMallaiahAgedabout40yearsOccHousewife'Fi/o'14435. Geeta Mandir^{Road,Miryalguda.Nalgonda' lelangana'}

¶130

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED^{2,3 7 and I}

¶131

AND

¶132

1 . The State^{c,f Telangana,Rep by its Public Prosecutor, HighCourt for the} State of Te.angana^HYderabad.

¶133

The Statiorr House^{Officer,Adavidevulapally Police Station' Nalgonda'}

¶134

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶135

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr'P} 'C^{praying that in the circumstances} Statedinthel\4e,norandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay L" pl."."O to^{qr.rashthe proceedingsin FIR No 15 of 2022 of Adavidevulapally} FLtLe Station^{'Ntalgondain so far is the Petitioners/A-2} '^{A-3' A-7 and A-8are} concerned

¶136

I.A. N O:1 OF 2O:22

¶137

Petition under^{Section 482 of Cr'P'Cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the lvl€:morandum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition'theHighCourt may} be pleased to di'ect^{the respondents to release the seized property in FIR No 15} ol 2022 of^{Ad aviC evula pally Police Station,Nalgonda}

¶138

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

¶139

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4980 OF 2022

¶140

Between:

¶141

Mohammed Akram, S/o. I,4ohammed lsmail, Aged about 34 Years, Occ Business, Rl/o Bhukthapur, Adilabad Town, Adilabad District

¶142

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶143

AND

¶144

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

¶145

...RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANTS

¶146

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. 147 of 2022 on lhe file of Court of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class Magistrate, At Adilabad, and quash the proceedings in the above C.C No 147 of 2022

¶147

l.A- NO: 1OF 2022

¶148

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that ,n 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. 147 of 2022 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class Iltlagistrate, At Adilabad,

¶149

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶150

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. 147 of 2022 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class Magistrate, At Adilabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition

¶151

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

¶152

CRIMIN AL PETITI^{oN NO:49A70F 2022}

¶153

Between:

¶154

Shamiutlah Khan,^{S/o Azmathullah Khan, Aged} 9poq|49^{Years' OccBusiness'} il"^{p""i""h, Voi-reila, Adilabad Town, Adilabad DistriCt'}

¶155

.PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶156

AND

¶157

\The State^{of Te:fangana, ThroughS H O AdilabadI Town Police Station'} idiLo'ii'ilittriit,-ie"p.^{ov' puntic Frosecutor,H ish Cou rt' Hvderabad}

¶158

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶159

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances StatedintheMenlorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay to call for the^{records relating to casein C'C NO 150 of 2022 on the} tiL U"^{pf -ot-} "r."O Corrt of^{Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class Magistrate,At} nJifuUuA, and^{quashthe proceedings in the above C C.No150of 2022}

¶160

LA. NO :1 OF^2O2'.2

¶161

Petition under^{Section482 of Cr'P C praying that in the circumstances} StatedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay be^pleased to^{dis;pensewith filling of the certified copy of the C-C'NO' 150 of} ZOiZ o" the^{filt: of Court of J"uniorCivil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class} Magistrate, At^Ad'labad,

¶162

t.A. NO: 2 0F²⁰²²

¶163

PetitionunderSection482ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances StatedintheMernorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighcourtmay 6" pr"rr"o to^{dirr_.ct the court below to returnthe seized material in c.c.No. 150} it zozz on the^{file of court of Juniorcivil Judge cum Judicial First-class} Magistrate, At^{Adilabad,pendingdisposalof the CriminalPetition}

¶164

This Petition coming^{on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds} of Criminal^{Petitionand upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri Gajanand} Chakr;varthy,^{Acvocatefor the petitioner ind the Public Prosecutoron behalfof} the Respondent

¶165

CRIMINAL PETI^{'IION NO:503 5 0F 2022}

¶166

Between:

¶167

Saiidullah Khan, S/o^{Azmathullah Khan, Agedqbou.t33 years' Occ' Business'} nil FJni""f-,u^{Mohella,AdilabadTown,AdilabadDistrict}

¶168

.PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶169

AND

¶170

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

¶171

..-RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶172

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVemorandum 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 First.Class l,4agistrate, At Adilabad, and quash the proceedings in the above C.C.No_ 335 of 2021

¶173

LA. NO: 1OF 2022

¶174

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum 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,

¶175

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶176

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 in C.C.NO. 335 of 2021 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial FirstClass Magistrate, At Adilabad, pending disposal of the Criminal petition

¶177

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

¶178

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:5052 OF 2022

¶179

Between:

¶180

1 Cholleti Rakesh, S/O Srinivas, Aged About 27 yearc, OCC Business, Rt/o H.No 12-4811 , lppalapally, Srirampur, Kalvasriramf ur, Karim Nagar District

¶181

2 Boli Laxmaiah, S/O Rajaiah Aged 24 yearc, OCC Business, R/0 kalvaSrirampuram, Peddapally District.

¶182

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 and 3

¶183

AND

¶184

1 Sub lnspector of Police, Chanda Nagar, Police Station, Hyderabad

¶185

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

¶186

...RESPON DENT/COM PLAINANTS

¶187

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 all further proceedings against the Petitioners in CC No141B ot 2O18 on the file of Honble XIX Metropolitan Magistrate Kukatpally, Cyberabad in the circumstance:s mentioned above to meet the ends of^justice.

¶188

LA. NO: 1OF 2022

¶189

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mem,rrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to sta1, of all further proceedings against the Petitioners in CC No 1418 of 2018 on the file of the Honble XIX Metropolitan Magistrate Kukatpally, Cyberabad pendinll dlsposal of the main case

¶190

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶191

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the N/em,rrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direcl the return of 1) Amber 16 Bags and Vehicle bearing registration No.AP:28- CD I 4446 Skoda Back colour, one Note Cell Phone from Chjolleti Rakesh and one Plus Cell Phone from Bolli Laxhmaiahseized by the^'1st Respondentin Crirr e No 179 of 2018 of Chanda Nagar Police Station ,Cyberabad District (Now numbered as CC No 1418 o'f 20't 8 on the file of the Hon'ble XIX fvletropolitan [t4agi:;trate Kukatpally, Cyberabad) pending disposal of the main case

¶192

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petrtior and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R. Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner arrd the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent

¶193

CRIMINAL PETITIC)N NO: 5071 OF 2022

¶194

Between:

¶195

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

¶196

Samala Kranthi Kumar, S/o Anantha Ramulu, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Business, R,o H.No.8723, Uday Nagar. Colony, Amangal, Amingal Town, Rangareddy District

¶197

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 & 2

¶198

AND

¶199

The State of Telangana, Rep by is Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanqana Hyderabad

¶200

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

¶201

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶202

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the lr/emorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition, the High court may} bepleasedtoquashtheproceedingsoftheFlRCrNo5Tl2022onthefileof rao'tnat Police Station,^{cyberabadundersec 272,273 rlw 34 of IPC against the} petitioner

¶203

t.A. NO:1 OF2022

¶204

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the^{lrilemorandumof Groundsof criminalPetition,the Highcourt may} be pleased to^{dispense with for filing of the certified copy of FIR cr.No.5712022} on ih" fil" of Kadihat^{policeStation, Cyberabad, pending disposalof the above} criminal^petition

¶205

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶206

Petition under Section^{482 of cr.P.cprayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the^{N,4emorandumof Groundsof criminalPetition,theHigh court may} be pleased to stay^{of all further proceedings including arrestof the petitioner in} FIR in cr.No.57t2O22^{on the file of Kadthal PoliceStation, cyberabad under Sec.} 272, 273, r/w 34 of^{lPC,pending disposal of the abovecriminalpetition}

¶207

This Petition coming^{on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds} of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PraveenKumar} Veerjala, Advocate^{for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutoron behalf of the} Respondent

¶208

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: s075OF 2022}

¶209

Between:

¶210

Samala Krantht^{Kumar, S/o AnanthaRamulu,Aged about 36 years,-Occ-} eriinuit, RJo H.No.B-23,^{Uday Nagar Colony, Amangal, AmangalTown,} Rangareddy District

¶211

...PETlrloNER/ACCUS^ED(s)

¶212

AND

¶213

1_ The state of Telangana,^{Rep by is Public Prosecutor, Highcourt for the state} of Telangana^HYderabad

¶214

B. Srinivas Goud,^{HeadConstable -412, AmangalPoliceStation, Cyberabad'} Rangareddy District

¶215

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶216

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [t4emrrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto quash the proceedings of the FIR in Cr.No.8212022 on the file of Amangal Police Station, Cyberabad under Sec. 272, 273, 188 lPC, 2O(2) of COPTA Act against the petitioner,

¶217

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶218

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated rn the [,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to dispense with for filing of the certified copy of FIR Cr.No.8212022 on the file of Amangal Police Station, Cyberabad, pending disposal of the above criminal petition, and pass

¶219

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶220

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner in FIR in Cr.No.B2l2O22 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

¶221

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the [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 behatf of the Respondent

¶222

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5078 OF 2022

¶223

Between:

¶224

Dusari Sailu Goud, S/o tVallagoud, Aged about 70 Years, Occ. Business, Rt/o H.No 1- 141506, Dwarakanagar, Kaghaznagar, Komrambheem-Asifabad District.

¶225

Shaik lnthiyraz Ahmed, S/o Fazal Ahmed, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Business, FVo H.No. 1-13-23511, Near Noorani lMasjid, Kagaznagar, Komrambheem Asifabad District.

¶226

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 and 2

¶227

AND

¶228

The State of Telrangana, through S.H.O. Kagtiaznagai-T, Poke Station, Komrambheem ,Asifabad District, rep. by Public Prosecutor,High Court, Hyderabad

¶229

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶230

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to case in C.C No.268 of 2022 on the file of .junior civil judge cum judicial first class magistrate at sirpur (T) Komarambheem asifabad district and quash the proceedings in the above C.C No.268 of 2022

¶231

l.A- NO: 1OF 2022

¶232

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased To dispense with filling of the certified copy of the C.C.NO. 268 of 2O22 On the file of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial FirstClass l/agistrate at Sirpu(T), Komrambheeem Asifabad District

¶233

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶234

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt4emorandum 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 of 2022 On the file of Junior Civil Judge Cum. Judicial First-Class lvlagistrate at Sirpur (T), komarambheem asifabad District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition

¶235

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BALA iVURALI Y Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶236

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5090 OF 2022

¶237

Between:

¶238

l.Chigullapalli Rajesh, S/o Chigulapalli Chadramouli, Aged about 33 years, Occ.Business, No 18-211, Shanthi Nagar, Badepally, Jadcherla, IVlahabubnagar. Chigullapalli Ramesh Ramu, S/o Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 41^years, Occ.Business, Rl/o 18-9-9/49, Chandrayanigutta, Behind Police Station, Bandlaguda Hyderabad.

¶239

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 and 2

¶240

AND

¶241

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

¶242

The Sub lnspector of Police, Maheshwaram Police Static Rachakonda.

¶243

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶244

Petition und:r Section⁴⁸² of^{Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memr>randum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition,the High court may} be pleased to quash the^{proceedings in FIR NO.177 of 2022on the file of} lvlaheshwaram Police Station.^{Rachakonda against the Petitioners}

¶245

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶246

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Mem:randum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition'theHigh Court may} be pleased to dispense^{with the filing of the certified copy of the FIR NO.177 of} 2O22 on the file of \4aheshwaram^{PoliceStation,Rachakonda}

¶247

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶248

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the HighCourtmay} be pleased to stay all further^{proceedingsin connection with FIR NO.177of 2022} on the file of [Vlaheshwaram Police Station,^Rachakonda

¶249

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶250

Petition under Section 482 o'f 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 seized property in connection} with FIR NO.177' of 2022 on the file of^{IVlaheshwaramPolice Station,} Rachakonda in favour of the^petitioners

¶251

This Petition comit-rg on for hearing,upon^{perusing the lr,4emorandum of Grounds} of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^{arguments of Sri BALAMURALIY,} Advocate for the Petitioner and the^{Public Prosecutor on behalf of the} Respondents

¶252

CRIMINAL PETITI()N NO: 5804 OF 2022

¶253

Between:

¶254

'1 . U.Ramanujaneyulu, S/o Chitrayaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ.Salesman, R/o. H. no-1^- 1- 18l20.Flal No-2.Sree Ranga Nilayam, Jawahar nagar,Hyderabad,Telangana.

¶255

K. Raghavender, S/o Chandra Shekar, Aged about 35^years, Occ.Shopkeeper, RJo-H.no-2-2-1 10319^{I 1 I} C, Sanjeevaiah Nagar, Amberpet. Hyderabad,Telangana.

¶256

...PETITIONERS

¶257

AND

¶258

I The State ol Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor,^High court, Hyderabad, Through P.S.Chikkadapally.

¶259

...RESPONDE NT/COM PLAINANTS

¶260

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner in Crime No.18812022, on the file of P.S. Chikkadapally, Hyderabad for the alleged offences Uls 272,273 lPC,20(2) COTPA

¶261

I.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶262

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 filing of certified copy of FIR in Crime.No.188 of 2022, on the file of P.S. Chikkadapally, Hyderabad

¶263

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶264

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in Crime. No. 18812022, on the file of P.S. Chikkadapally Town pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of justice,

¶265

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶266

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 return the property seized from the Petitioners in connection with Crime No.1BB of 2022, on the file of P.S. Chikkadapally, Hyderabad forthwith immediately pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of justice,

¶267

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the fv]emorandum 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

¶268

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5805 OF 2022

¶269

Between:

¶270

Mohd Ateeq Uddin, S/o Late Khaja lMoin Uddin Aged about 30 years Occ. Business Rl/o H.No.19-4-71a1244, Al Jubali Colony, Falaknama,Bandlaguda, Hyderabad.

¶271

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶272

AND

¶273

The State of Telangana, Rep by the Publrc Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad, Through P.S. Ramacha ndrapuram

¶274

... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶275

Petition undt:r Section⁴⁸² of cr.P.c^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the High courtmay} be pleased to^quash the^{proceedings against the Petitioner in c.c. No.28412022,} on the file of Spec;ial^{JudicialN/lagistrate of First Class Prohibition and Excise} Court at Sangaredcly for the^{alleged offencesUs 273,'188 IPC 3(M)24(1) COTPA}

¶276

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶277

Petition und:r section⁴⁸² of^{Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the L4em()randum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition,the High Courtmay} be pleased to dispense^{with the filing of certified copy of charge sheet in} c.c..No.ze+ of 2022.^{On the file of SpecialJudicial Magistrate of First class} Prohibition and Ext;ise^{Court at Sangareddyin the interest of justice}

¶278

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶279

Petition under Section^{482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the [,Iemcrandum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition,the High courtmay} be pleased stay al further^{proceedings including appearance of the Petitionerin} c.c. No. 28412022,^{On the file of SpecialJudicialMagistrate of Firstclass} Prohibition and Ex:ise court^{at Sangareddy pending disposalof the crl.P.in the} interest of^justice,

¶280

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶281

Petition unc er Section⁴⁸² of^{Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the l,4emorandum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to^retL rn the^{property seizedand deposited in connectionwith c.c.} No.284 of 2022, On the^{file of SpecialJudicial lrilagistrate of First Class} prohibition and Excise court at Sangareddy pending disposal of the crl.P. in the interest of^justice

¶282

This Petition comilg on for^{hearing,upon perusing the Memorandumof Grounds} of Criminal Petitic)n and upon^{hearing the argumentsof Sri SrinivasaReddy} Balakisti, Advocat,r for the^{Petitioner and the PublicProsecutor on behalf of the} Respondents

¶283

CRIMINAL PETlTlrf N NO: 5806 OF 2022

¶284

Between:

¶285

Enishetty Santhosh. Sio Ramulu, Aged^{about 39 years, Occ} Busrness, RYo Ramayampet Vrllage and^{lr,4andal, N/edak District.Telangana.}

¶286

...PETTTTONERANt)

¶287

The State of Telangana, Rep by the Public^{Prosecutor,HighCourt,Hyderabad,} Through P.S Ramayampet.

¶288

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶289

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the court below to return the property seized and deposited in connection with C.C No.105 of 2O22, On the file of Judicial First Class lVlagistrate at [Vedak pending disposal of the COTP in the interest of^justice,

¶290

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶291

Petition under Sectron 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitionersⁱⁿ C.C. No. 10512022, On the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at^tvledak pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of justice,

¶292

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶293

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the court below to return the^property seized and deposited in connection with C.0 No 105 of 2022, On the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at ltrledak forthwith immediately^pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of^justice,

¶294

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

¶295

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5811 OF 2022

¶296

Between:

¶297

lVlohan Lal Kumawath, S/o. Jogaram Kumawath, Aged.38 Years, Occ. Business, No. 42-281 I 412, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

¶298

...PETITIONERYACCUSED No.1

¶299

AND

¶300

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

¶301

G. Laxmiaah, Sub lnspector of police, P.S. Malkajgiri, Cyberabad.

¶302

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶303

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [,4emorandum 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.l,4alkajgiri pending on the file of the Honble XVll AIV 1,4 court, Cyberabad at lvlalakajgiri in the interest of justice.

¶304

l.A. NO: 1 CrF 2022

¶305

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the t\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the^{HighCourt may} be pleased to stay all further^proceedings including the appearance of^the petitro ner/Accu sed .Nol in C.C.No.101712022 of P.S l,4alkajgiri^pending on the file of the Honble XVll Additional ltrletropolitan Magistrate,^{Cyberabadat l,4alkajgiri} and quash the sanre

¶306

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the^{lVemorandum of Grounds} of Crrminal Petitiorr and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Nand^{Kishore Yadav,} Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶307

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5836 OF 2022

¶308

Between:

¶309

Narra Peddulu, S/o. l,4uttaiah, Aged 37 Years, Occ. Driver,^Rl/o. H.No.^2-36211 , Mangalagudem. Khammam, Telangana-507003,

¶310

...PETITION ERYACCUSED

¶311

AND

¶312

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At F yderabad.

¶313

..,RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶314

Petitron uncler Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt4emorandum 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 Khammam (R t Police Station, Khammam District, against the Petitioner/Accused Under Seclions 27O,273 of l.P.C , and Section 20(2) COTPA Acl,

¶315

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶316

Petition uncler Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\4errrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased lo Disl)ense with the certified copies of F.l.R.No.217 of 2022, Daled 28-06-2022, Registered before the Khammam Rural Police Station,

¶317

l.A. NO: 2OF 202i

¶318

Petition uncier Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the I\4enrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to sta,, all further Proceedings in F.l.R.No. 217 ol 2022, Before the Khammam (R )Pclice Station, Khammam District, againsl the Petitioner/Accused Under Sections 210,273 of l.P.C and Section 20(2) COTPA Act,

¶319

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the Memorandum of^Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^{Sri S.S.N.MURTHY,} Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on^behalf of^the Respondents

¶320

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5859 OF²⁰²²

¶321

Between:

¶322

Takre frilallu, S/o Narayana, Aged about^{45 Years, Occ. Business,Rl/oVaniari} Village, Kagahznagar Mandal, Komrambheem-Asifabad^District-

¶323

Waseem, S/o Abdul Rahaman, Aged^{about 35 Years, Occ. Business,R/o} Indira Market, Kagahznagar Mandal, Komrambheem-Asifabad^District.

¶324

...PETITIONERYACCUSED¹ AND²

¶325

AND

¶326

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O. Kaghaznagar-T,^{Police Station,} Komrambheem Asifabad District, rep. by Public^{Prosecutor, High Court,} Hyderabad.

¶327

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶328

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} 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. 416 ol 2022^{On the file} of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial^{First-Class Magistrateat Sirpu(T),} Komrambheeem Asifabad District, and^quash the^{proceedingsin the above} C.C.No. 416 of 2022

¶329

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶330

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C^praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the HighCourt may} be pleased to dispense with filling of the certified copy^of the^{C.C.NO. 146 of} 2022 On the file of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First-Class^{Magistrate at} Sirpu(T), Komrambheeem Asifabad District, At Adilabad

¶331

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶332

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High^{Court maybe} pleased to direct the court below to return the seized material in C.C.NO.⁴¹⁶ of 2022 On the file of Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial^{First-Class l,4agistrateat} Sirpu(T), Komrambheeem Asifabad District,^pending disposal of^{the Criminal} Petition

¶333

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the Memorandum^{of Grounds} of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^Gaianand Chakravarthi, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public^{Prosecutoron behalf of} the Respondents

¶334

CRIMINAL PETITIC)N NO: 5867 OF 2022

¶335

Between:

¶336

Kamal Kishore Bajaj, S/o Late Rameshwar Lai Bajaj, Aged about 58 Years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No. 2-9311|E, Near lVlasjid Stree, Tara Nagar, Sherlingampally, Sangareddy District.

¶337

Ahmed Pasha Shaik, S/o Anwar Pasha Shaik @ Anwar, Aged about 35 Years, Occ. Driver, Fl/o H.No- 9-93, lndira Nagar, Chanda Nagar, S herlinga mp a lly, Sangareddy District.

¶338

Parasmal, S/o Jasaram, Aged about 28 Years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.235, Huda Colony, Chandanagar, Sherlingampally, Sangareddy District.

¶339

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 to 3

¶340

AND

¶341

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

¶342

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶343

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying thal in the circumstances stated in the Menrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to case in CC.No 100 of 2022 On the file of Special Judicial First-Class Magistrate Prohibition and Excise Cum lll Additional Junior^rlivil Judge at Sangareddy Distrrct, and quash the proceedings in the above CCN,I. 100 of 2022

¶344

LA. NO: 1 OF 202'2

¶345

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. 100 of 2O22 On the file of Special Judicial First-Class tvlagistrate Prohibition and Excise Cum lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy District,

¶346

LA. NO:2OF 2022

¶347

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum 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. 1OO of 2022 On the file of Special Judicial First-Class Magistrate Prohibition and Excise Cum lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition

¶348

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶349

¶350

o'f 2022 On the file of Special Judicial First-Class Magistrate Prohibition and Excise Cum lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition

¶351

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶352

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5894 OF 2022

¶353

Between:

¶354

Khayyum Shaik S/o. lbraheem, Aged about. 4Oyears, Occ business, H.No.1121 , Kolimigadda, Dorakunta, Kodada l,4andal, Suryapet, Telangana.

¶355

Aziz Shaik, S/o. [/ustafa, Aged about 32years, Occ Business, Ri/o.4-46, vepalamadhavaram village, [\Iellacheruvu madalam, District, Nalgonda.

¶356

Fayazuddin Shaik, S/o. Shamshuddin. Aged about 40^years,Occ Business, R/o. 250/3,Nayak Nagar, Near H.S. High school, Kodad Mandal, Kodad.

¶357

Saidulu daida, S/o.Venkatratnam. Aqed about 3Tyears,Occ Business., Rl/o.611, SC colony, Kodad mandal. Kapugal, Nalgonda, Telangana.

¶358

Ameer Basha shaik, Sio. lvlasthan. Aged about 42 years, Occ Business,^Rl/o. 5-2911512, Matha Nagar, Kodad lr,4andal, Kodad,

¶359

...PETITIONERYACCUSED 1 to 5

¶360

AND

¶361

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

¶362

The Station House Officer, Kodad Town Police Station, Suryapet

¶363

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶364

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. 398 of 2022 On the file of Honble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad in so far as the Petitioners/A-1 to A-5 is concerned

¶365

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶366

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 filing of the certified copy of the CC NO.398 of 2022 On the tile of Honble Judicial First Class l,4agistrate at Kodad, suryapet district

¶367

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶368

Petition und.--r Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [V]em,rrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to djrect the respondents to release the seized property in connection with CC No. 398 ol 2022 On lhe file of Honble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad, Suryapet d strict in favour of the petitioner/A-1

¶369

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

¶370

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5910 OF 2022

¶371

Between:

¶372

Syed Azher Ali, S/o Syed Ahmed Ali Age.3Oyrs, Occ.Business, H.no. 18-8-104/ 16a, Rajakabagr, Edibazar. Santoshnagar, Hyderabad.

¶373

... PETITIONERYACCUSED

¶374

AND

¶375

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

¶376

2 T.he Sub-lnspector of Police, Santoshnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District.

¶377

...RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANTS

¶378

Petition un(ler section 482 of cr.p .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Merrorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC NO.2263 ol 2022 On the file of Honble vll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, Hyderabad District against th€r petitioner

¶379

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021|

¶380

Petition Lrn(ier section 4BZ of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Nzlenrorandum of Grounds of criminal petition,the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the stock seized in cc No.2263 ot 2022 on the 'ile of Hon'ble vil Additional chief Metropolitn Magistrate at Hyderabad, Hyderabad District in favour of the petitioner

¶381

This Petition com ng on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri y. Balamurali, Advocate for the, Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶382

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5953 OF 2022

¶383

Between:

¶384

Syed Khaja Husnuddin, S/o. Late lbrahim, Aged. 50^{years,H.No.9-4-} 1311181113, Nadeem Colony, Tolichouki, Golkonda, Hyderabad.

¶385

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

¶386

I\rlohammed Feroz Khan, Sio. Mohammed^{Shareef Khan, Aged.49years,} Occ. Driver, H.No. 9-4-131/1/B/33, Nadeem Colony,^{Shaikpet,Golkonda,} Hyderabad.

¶387

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶388

AND

¶389

The State of Telangana, Rep by is Public Prosecutor, High Court^for the^State of Telangana Hyderabad.

¶390

2 A. Ravi, Sub-lnspector of Police, Zahitabad Rural^{PoliceStation, Zahirabad,} District Sangareddy.

¶391

.,. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶392

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^{High Court may be} pleased to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.13912022 on the file of Honorable Principal Session Judge, Ivledak at Sangareddy, under Sec.^{270and 273,20(2)} Nw.7 (2) of COPTA Act against the^petitioner

¶393

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶394

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased to stay of all further proceedings in S.C.No.13912022 on the file of Honorable Principal Session Judge, Ir,4edak at Sangareddy, under Sec. 270 and 273, 20(2) R/w.7(2) of COPTA Act against the^{petitioner,pending} disposal of the above criminal petition,

¶395

This Petition coming on for heanng,upon perusing the lvlemorandum 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

¶396

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5983 OF 2022

¶397

Between:

¶398

1 Vanamala Venu Gopal, S/o.Vaikuntam, Aged. 45 years, Occ. Kirana Shope R/o. Ashoknagar, l\rlanuguru, Khammam District.

¶399

Samudrala i/enkateswarlu, Slo.Radha Krishna, Aged. 42 years, Occ. Business, R/ o. Sundaraiah, I\rlanuguru, Khammam District

¶400

Shaik l\rlunnaf Pasha, S/o. Vahab, Aged 34 years, Occ. Auto Driver- Rl/o. PK-I, center, Manuguru, Khammam District.

¶401

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 to 3

¶402

AND

¶403

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad through P.S.lilarruguru.

¶404

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶405

Petition und:r Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the N4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings CC.No.20712O22, UlSec.270, 273 IPC on the file of Ju,licial First Class Magistrate, I,4anugur against the Petitioners/Accuserl No.1 to 3

¶406

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶407

Petition und --r Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the IVemrrrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased To stay all further proceedings in CC.No.20712022 UlSec 270 273 IPC on the frle of magistrate manugur including appearnace of the petitroners\Accu sed No.1 to 3 pending disposal of the main criminal petition

¶408

This Petition comirg on for hearing,upon perusing the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Ravi Chandra Shekhar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent

¶409

CRIMINAL PETITIC,N NO: 5985 OF 2022

¶410

Between

¶411

Vikas Chakilam S/o. Venkataramana. Age 22 yearc, Occ Business. R/o Contract Basti, Bellampaly, Ramagundum. District, T.S.

¶412

Linga Santhrsh, S/o. Ramchander, Age 34 Years, Occ Business. Ryo Contract Basti, Bellampaly, Ramagundum. District, T.S.

¶413

¶414

4 Ir/D. lmam. S/o. l,4ahaboob, Age 30 Yrs.. Occ Business, Rl/o. Lingapur Village of Dhandepa ly Mandal, Mancherial District, TS.

¶415

5 Pavan Sancf,ari, S/o.Shankaraiah, Age 34 years Occ Business, R/o. Kistapur Village of iar,nram lt4andaldal, ltrlancherial District, TS.

¶416

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 to 4

¶417

AND

¶418

'l . The State of Telangana and 2 others, Rep^{by Public Prosecutor'High court} of Judicature at^HYderabad.

¶419

The SHO, P.S.^{Bellampally I TownRamagundum District'T'S'}

¶420

Irrl. Santhosh,^{sub-lnspector of Police. PS BellampallyI Town,Ramagundum} District, T.S.

¶421

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶422

PetitionunderSection4S2otCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances StatedintheMemorandUmofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay ;;;l;.;"; to quash ail the^{proceeding-s-against.thepetitioners / accused No.1to} 4in F.t.R.No. 51^{of 2022. a\ZA-OS-ZdZZissued by the SHO.. P.S BellampallyI} Town, Ramagungum^{Oistrict for the offences under Section27Oand 273' of} r.P.C

¶423

l.A. NO :1OF²⁰²²

¶424

Petition under^{Section482 ol Cr'P} 'C^{praying that in the circumstances} StatedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay ["^{pr"u.uo to direct the Learned Judicial First classMagistrateat Bellampally.to} return the seized^{case property to the petitioners/ Accused No'1 to 4 in F l'R No'} ii-or zozz, dt^{2Stoit2o22 issued by the SHo} '^{P's BellampallvlTown'} ir*"grnOm^{District for ihe offences- under section 27o and 273' of l 'P.C''} pending disposal of^{the quashpetition}

¶425

This Petition^{coming on for hearing,upon perusingthe l\rlemorandumof Grounds} of Criminal^{Petition and upon frJaringthe argumentsof Sri Boggula Raiu'} Advocate for^{the Petitioner and thJ Public Prosecutoron behalf of the} Respondents

¶426

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: 6034OF 2022}

¶427

Between:

¶428

1 Chitrasan Biswal^{S/o Chaitanya Biswal,Aged. about 41 y-ears'Occ Business'} ilii.' H,r.r".l+-sC5,^{Quthbullapirr,cyberabad, Hyderabad'Telangana'}

¶429

2 Prahaladh Ram,^{S/o TeiaRam, Aged-about 32 years' Occ Business'R/o'} g No. +t-t+Olt, Balanag'ar,Hyderabad,Telangana

¶430

...PETITIONERS

¶431

AND

¶432

The State of Telangana,^{Rep by the Public Prosecutor' ThroughP S Balanagar}

¶433

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶434

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [V1em,;randum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners in Crime No. 22712022, P.S. Balanagar for the alleged offences Uls 273,188,420 lPC,6(B) COTPA

¶435

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶436

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 filing of certified copy of FlR. No. 227 of 2022 P.S. Balanagar, Cyberabad in the interest of justice

¶437

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶438

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 sitay all further proceedings in Crime No.227 of 2022, P.S.Balanagar, Cyberabad pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of justice,

¶439

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶440

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 dirr:ct the Respondents to relurn lhe property seized from the Petitioners in corrnection with Crime No.227 of 2022. on the file. of P.S. Balanagar, Cyberabad forthwith immediately pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of justice

¶441

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the N.4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivasa Reddy Balakisti, Advocato for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶442

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6056 OF 2022

¶443

Between:

¶444

Mohammed. Abdul Raoof, S/o Mohammed Abdul Raosheed Aged about 31 years, Occ. Business R/o.H.no-19-4-340/69/1 ,Kondareddyguda,^{-Bahadurpura,} Kishanbagh, Hyderabad,Telangana.

¶445

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶446

AND

¶447

The State of Telangana, Rep by the Public Proser:utor, Through p S Chaderohat

¶448

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶449

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\ilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner in C-C No.73212022, on the file of Vlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan lt/agistrate, Hyderabad for the alleged offenses U/s 1BB, 273, 336 lPC, sec 5,2O(2) COTP Act

¶450

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶451

Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of FIR in C.C.No.732 of 2022, on lhe file of Vlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in the interest of justice

¶452

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶453

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. 73212022, on the file of Vlll Addl. Chief lVletropolitan t\4agistrate, Hyderabad pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of justice,

¶454

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶455

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 return the^property seized from the Petitioner in connection with C.C No.732 of 2022. on the file of Vlll Addl Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad forthwith immediately^pending disposal of the Crl.P. in the interest of^justice,

¶456

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lvlemorandum 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

¶457

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6058 OF 2022

¶458

Between:

¶459

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

¶460

...PETITIONERYACCUSED No.1

¶461

AND

¶462

'1 . The High Court of Telangana, Rep by its public prosecutor, High court Hyderabad.Through P.S. Raidurgam, Hyderabad. 2. Sri. B. Sandeep Raj, S/o. B.Samuel, Age.30^years, Occ. Sl of Police, Raid u rs am, cybera bad, R/o s uⁿ city, * ".:.,.H1#3 i,,3 Pr*oi,"o * N ANrs ".o,

¶463

Petition und,:r Section 482^{of Cr.P-C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the lMemorandum of^{Groundsof criminalPetition,the Highcourtmay} be pleased to quash the^{proceedingsagainst thePetitionerin} c.c. No.1069/2021 on the^file of^{XVI AdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate,} Cyberabad At Fla1endranagar,^{Ranga Reddy District for the offense} U/Sec.273,188 ,42C of l.P.C and^{Sec.3(lM),20 (2) of C.O T.P.Act these} circumstances mer tioned above^{to meet the ends of justice}

¶464

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶465

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the [r/em:randum of^{Groundsof Criminal Petition,the HighCourtmay} be pleased^pleased to^{Stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the} c.c. No.1069/2021 on the file of^{XVI AdditionalltrletropolitanMagistrate,} Cyberabad At Flajendranagar, Ranga^{Reddy District for the offense} U/Sec.273,188,42Ct of I.P.C and^{Sec.3(tt/),20 (2) of C.O.T.P.Act pending} disposal of the main Criminal Petition

¶466

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^{perusingthe lVlemorandum of Grounds} of Criminal Petitic n and upon^{hearingthe argumentsof Sri PraveenKumar} Veerjala, Advocate for the Petitioner and^{the PublicProsecutor on behalfof the} Respondent No.1 and None for the^{Respondent No.2}

¶467

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6105 OF²⁰²²

¶468

Between:

¶469

Tharange Nagesh, S/o. Balajeed,^{Aged 20 Years, Occ driver, Rl/ o. 11-1-2293'} Nizambad.

¶470

...PETITIONERYACC U SED

¶471

AND

¶472

The State of^-felangana, Rep. by its^{Public Prosecutor,HighCourt at} Hyderabad

¶473

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

¶474

.,.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶475

Petition uncer Section 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 in C.C.No.16B/2022 of P.S.tt4anoor, Naryankhed, Sangareddy and return^the property seized bv the police l,4anoor pending on the file of the Hon'ble JFCM, court, Narayankhed, Sangareddy. in the interest ofjustice.

¶476

l.A. NO: 1OF 2021

¶477

Petition unrler Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\4en orandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may

¶478

be pleased to stay all further^proceedings including the appearance of^the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No. 16812022 of P.S. N/anoor, Narayankhed, Sangreddy pending on the file of the Hon'ble JFCM court, Naraynkhed, Sangareddy

¶479

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. NO.1 and none for the Respondent No.2

¶480

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶481

¶482

Dr.CSl..,l CrtPNo.9062 of 2021 tuttl balctt

¶483

HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶484

CRIMINAL PtrTITION Nos.9O62 and 9554 of 2021 and CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6O7, 2633, 2634, 2636, 2639, 2816,2892,2900,4980,4987, 5035, 5052, 507 l, 5075, 5078, 5090, 5804, 5805, 5806, 581 1, 5836, 5859, 5867, 5894, 59 10, 5953, 5983,5985,6034,6056, 6058 and 6105 of 2022

¶485

COI\iIMON OI?DER:

¶486

Pr-ojccting that the provisions of law under which tl-re accusatior is made against the petitioners does not attract to tlrr: facts of the case and thereby, seeking to quash thc proceeclir-rg1s that are pending against the petitioners, these Criminal F'etitions are Iiled.

¶487

Seekir-rg to quash the charge sheets, Criminal Petirion Nos.9554 of 2021, 607, 5910, 5894,2633, 2636, 2639, 28 16,^.+980, 4987, 5035, 5052, 5078, 5805, 5806, 58 11, 5953, 5859,5867, 5983,6056,6058 and 6105 of2022 are filed.

¶488

Seekinq to quash the F.I.Rs, Criminal Petitior-r Nos9062 ot 2021,2892,2900, 5090, 2634, 5O7 1, 507.5, 5836, 603+. l>985 and 5804 of 2022 xe filed

¶489

¶490

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2021 aru1 batch

¶491

A meticulous pemsal of the material that is^available on record in all the Criminal Petitions discloses^makingof accusation against the petitioners invoking^{Sections3(m),} 5, 6(b), 7(2]r, 7(5}, 20(211, 24(rl^and 23^{of the Cigarettesand} Other Tobacco Products^{(Prohibition of Advertisementarrd} Regulation of Trade and Commerce,^{Production,Supply} and Distribution) Act, 2OO3^{(hereinafter referred to as "the} COTP Act, 2OO3" , for brevity). As^{far as the provisions} attracting the Indian Penal Code are^{concerned, theyare} Sections l9a, 269, 27O, 272,273, 278,328^{read with 511,} 336, 4O9 and 42O IPC.

¶492

In Criminai Petition No.9554^{of 2027, Section 34(a) of} Excise Act, 1968 and in Criminal^{Petition No.9O62 of 2021,} Section 59(1) of Food Safety and^{Standards Act, 2006u'ere} also invoked

¶493

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

¶494

¶495

Dr.CSL, J CrlPtt"o.9062 of 2O21 o/)tl hotch

¶496

For proper understanding of the case, the^provisions of law invoked, the gist of the allegations^{and the crux of} the matter:s taken up for adjudication are tabulated^as

¶497

under:

¶498

sl. No	Crl.P, No.	RELIEFSOUGHT E.OR	sEcrr	oNsoFLAw	IIwoLvED	OF NiIH[cr"
			COTP Act	IPC	OTHER LAWS
I I	9554 of 202		Quash^of CC No.457of2O2O pendinlgon thefile of courtof JudicialMagistrate of FirstClass, Huzurragar. I	ZJ, 20(21		34(a)ofAP ExciseAct, 1968
2	2492 OF 2022	Quash of FIR.No.93of2022 ofIbrrrtrimpatnam Police Station, Rachakonda. (petitiorrersAl &A2)	20(21	27Oand 273 I	NIL	]^s"ttirg and LrunsDortationof Ir)ba(coproducts. i1)K9OOO^gutka iPackets-12O pouches. (2)H10cigarettes- ackets ._) I
	9062 OF 2021	Quash^of FIR No.330of2027of Ellantllankunta Police Station, RajannaSiricilla district. (Petitio:nerA1&A2)	NIL	270, 324 511 273, R/w	59(i)r'ssA, 2006	Posscssionand sellingof Tobaccoproducts. Amber gutka packets- 48 Virr-ralpackets- 155 V-1packet-208 ette-42 I':rrisc
4	607 OF 2022 I I	Quash of CC.No.1138of 2020pendingon thehleofJFCMat Nalgonda (petitionersA2)	7(5), 20(2) I	272,273 and42O l	NIL	and of cigalgttg_i Sclling tritnsportation tob.rccoproducts. I)cillarctteESSE liiiht5 packets. 2)P:rris big size o

¶499

¶500

Dr.CSL, J CrU'No.9O62 of 2O21 ard batch

¶501

I						packets, 3)Strawberry super cigarettes-3 packets, 4)Parissmall cigarette-13 packcts. s\zc Mond slim
J I I I	2900 OF 2022	Quash^of FiR No.l5of2022of Adavidelllapa-lly Police Station(petitioners A2,A3,A7,A8) I	20(2)	taa,272, 420	NII,	Tralsportationa;rd Possession of bannedproducts, viz., tobacco/ /gutka/khaini^etc. (1)blucbull - 12 bags. (2)K-9000Gutka- 5bags
6	5910 OF 2022	Quash CC.No.2263 2O22pending the frleof Courtof Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad accused (solc Chief of of on t}le VII	nil	272,273, 336 I	Nil	Selling tobacco products: l)ParisCigarettes 239boxes 2. WinCigarettes 27boxes3.XL-1 JafraniTobacco-l8 Packets, 4.V-ITobacco -25 Packets, 5.RRGoldTobacco 585Packets, 6.S.R-ITobacco- 265packets, 7.RR Group Tobacco-45 packets, S.Maha Baba Zalrani Tobacco- 126 packets, 9.Swagath Gold Tobacco-96 packets,lO.Amber Tobacco-45 pack(]ts, 11.RajaTobacco- 120packets, l2.MerajTobacco- l0ladhis
	5894 OF	of of CC.No. 2022 Quash 398	24(1)	420.273 I	NII-	Sclling trans ortatlon and of

¶502

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

¶503

|l
I
I
I
|||^-1n22T
I
I
I
t|^p."din1fonrh;^nleI
IofrheCourlof
IJFCMarKociad
l(petitiorrersAt^As)
I
,|I
I

|||tobaccoproducts:
1) RR-4440sachets
2)Amber-7500
sachets,
3)
vimal-3oOO
sachets,
4)V-1-3000sachets,
5)Swagath-154
sachets,6)Miraj-
| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |||||||225sachets.| |8|5090
OF
2022|Quash^of
FIR
No.177oi2O22 of
MaheshwaramPS
Rachakonda.
(Petitioners
A1&A2)
I|6(B)|270,273|NIL
I|Transporting
tobaccoproducts,
forselling, viz.,
(1)
SagarPan
Masala -
2OO
packets,
(21sR-I -2OO
packets
(3)RRTobacco-
160packets,
(41Vimal -2OO
packets,(5)Chaini
Tobacco
-1O
packets,
(6)SwagathGold
Tobacco -
60
ckets.
I| |9|2633
OF
2022|Quash^CC14O9oi
2021pendingon
the hle of
tl.re
Court,rfJFCMat
Nalgonrla.
(soleaccused)|n|272,^'273|Nil|Transportationof
tobaccoproducts.
(1) RRtobacco
products
-5
packets,
(2)Swagat}tgold
tobaccoproducts-5
packets
(3)
Blue
bull
tobaccoproduct-5
packets
(4) SagarPan
Masala -4packets
(5)SR-1tobacco
products
-2O
packets,
(6)K-900Otobacco
product -3packets,
17)^V-1
tobacco
products-
20
packets,|

¶504

¶505

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 of2O21 a nd batclt

¶506

		I		I		(8)Vimal products packcts. tobacco -J I
10	2634 OF 2022	Quash^of FIR No.26of2022of NalgondaITorvr.t policestation. (sole accused)	7(s), 20l2l	269 I	Nil	Iilegallyprocuring ofbannedgutka and tobacco products. (1)120babatobacco products 5 tins, (2)goldenzardaor:.e boxcontaining1O (50)gramsboxes, (3)sagarzarda60 pouches.
11	2636 OF 2022	Quash of CC.No.263of2Or9 pending onthefilc of theCourtofII AdditionalJFC,I atMiryalguda. (petitionerA2)	nil	273.278 .utd42O I	Nil I	Illegally sellingand transportationof noiousGutka. I-BlueBull-305 packets, 2. I(haleja-259 Packets, 3. Amber-32 packets, 4. Miraj - 80 packets, 5.V-lTobacco-243 packets, 6. VimalPan Masala -150 packets, 7. Rani (79) consisting 70 pieces.
t2	2639 OF 2022	Quash^ofCC.No. 124 of 2022 pending onthchlc of the Courtof JFCM at Miryaiguda. (petitionerA2)	2O( 2)	I 32Atlw Jsll i	Nil	Selling gutka packets illegally. (1)K90OOsutka packets-lO, (2)Mahababa tobacco^pouches- 60, (3) V-1tobacco packets-104, (4)Miraj tobacco^- 525pouches I
13	2816 OF 2022	Quash CC.No.1357 of oI 202	t'ndin otl	nil	'272.'273	Nil

¶507

¶508

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2O21 oncl battch

¶509

T		the fileofthe court ofSpecialJFCM (for prohibition and excise offcnces) at Nalgonrla. titiont:r42		I	I	(I)V-Igutka-57 packets, (2)SR-1gutka-lO7 packets, (3)BANARSIgutka- 3Opackcts. I
I4 tt	4980 OF '2022	Qr-taslr of CC.No.1.17o{2022 pendingon thefile of the courtof .IuclicialMagistrate of l.'irst Adilabad. (petitioner elqts!ed) Class, sole	Nil	270,273	Nit	Illegalpossessionof tobaccoandgutka. (1)RK classic tobacco-8 Boribags.
1.5 tl I I	4947 OF 2022 I	Qtr^as:r of CC.No.I50ttt2022 pendingon thefile of thc courtof JrrlicizrlMagistrate of iirst Class, Adilaba<1. (sole.rcctrsed)	Nil	270,273	Nil	Illegallypossession and sellingof noxioussubstances i.e.,tobacco (1)RK Classic Tobacco-O4big bags, (21 RK Classic Tobacco-10plastic covers, (3) Jli Tobacco- lOBoxes, (4)HotTobacco-IO smallbags, (5) ActionTobacco- O2boxes, (6)Amber-20 packets, (71XZOITobacco Olsmallbag, (8)SRTobacco-Oi smallb:rg, 9)GaneshTobacco- 01b,€]r:18
l6 I l	5035 OF 2022	Qu^a-sh of CC.No.3:1.5ol2O2I pendinftonthehle of theCotrrtof Judit:iali'la!{istrate ofF:rstClass.at Aciilabir,i. {sole^{at't'rrse'tl)}	Nil	270,273	Nil I	. Illegal sellingof noxious substalces. SR-Itobacco-lO bags.

¶510

¶511

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 o[ 2021 artcl bal.ch

¶512

tt	s052 OF 2022 i	Quash of CC.No.1418 of 2O18onthe {ilcof XIXMetropolitan Magistrate Kukatpally, Cyberabad. (petitioners 42&A3 I I	20(2)	409,420, 273,184	Nil	Transporting banned tobacco, panmasala,gutka packets from Karnatakastate illegally. (1)Amber 16 bags. 1
t8	5071 OF 2022 I I	Quash of FIR.No.57of2022 ofKadthalpolice station. (petitionersA1 &A2)	NIL	272,273 rlw34 I I I	Ni1	Purchasingald selling banned tobaccoitemsto the public athigher rates without having valid permissionfrom government. (1)K9000Clutka- 22 packcts, (2)RRGutka-4bags, (3)SwagathGold-27 packets (4)RRTobacco23 packets, (5)RRGold Chewing Tobacco-l4packets, (6)VimatTobacco 6 packets (7)MirajKayne-17 packets (8) Banarsi perfumedTobacco- lOpackets (9) Chotababa Tafrani Patti1O packets, (10)ChainiTobercco -2packets (1i) Sudhakar Zatda-2
19 I I	5075 ol' 2022	Quasl'r of FIR.No.82of2022 ofAmalgalpolice station,	20(2)	raa,272,	Nil	Selling gutka packcts without vaJidpermission. k-9000 tka l

¶513

¶514

Dr.CSL,.I CriPNo.9O62 (,f 2O21 a01d betclL

¶515

	I	Cyberatrad sole acr:used				p:rckets,6obig ckets
20	5078 OF 2022	quash ofCC.No 26a of 2022 pending onthefile of the Courtof .ludicialMagistrate of First Class Sirpur, I(omarambheem Asifabarldistrict (petitioners A1 &42	ni1	270, 273 420,	Ni1	Illegalpossession aldsaleofnoxious materialcontaining nicotine. (1)pool chap-5 cartons.
2t I	5811 of 2022	Quash of CC No.101?of2022 pending onthefi1e of theCourtof XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberab,ad. (petitionerA1)	20{2)	.)7.> 1'72 188	Nil	Dr-rmping, transportingarrd sellingofbanned tobaccoproducts: (I)R.R. chewing tobacco- 9Opackets, {2)^SlagathGold- 47packets, {3)RR Tobacco TOpackets, (4)RajaTobacco- 102packets, {5)^{MirajTobacco-} 95packets, (6)AmberTobacco- 24packets, (7)V-lTobacco-225 packets, (8)SR-1Tobacco-54 k
						pacets.
22	5836 of 2022	Quash of FIR.No.2l17of 2022of Khammam police station. (sole accused)	2012		270,273	Nit
						:tcrkets
23	5859 of 2022	Quash of CC.No.416of2022 pending onthe{ile of the Courtof JudicialMagistrate of Filst Ciass,	nil	270,273	Nil	Illegalpossession anrlsaleofnoxious food. (tromA1) l l lodi- 9 (t) p:r bail circLs

¶516

¶517

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2O2I atvl batclt

¶518

l I		Sirpur, KornrambheemAsif abadDistrict. (petitionerAI&A2) I			l i I I	(2)poolchap-15 packcts. (fromA2) (l)amberpackets- 98packets. (2lM tobacco-32 boxes (3)V-1tobacco-716 packets. (4)V-I tobacco-48 packets(blue). (5)Ni tobacco-48 packets (6)XLOI tobacco- 134packets. (7)XL-01tobacco small-216 packets (8)bailjodipackets- 4 l9lmazatobacco-2 packets (10)l(ashmiri quiu,antobacco-1O packets. (11)D.Itobacco-5 packets (l2)janamtobacco- Ipacket. (I3)pul chap-175 packets 14)janamtobacco small60packets (15)baba tobacco-2O packets (16)baba black tobacco-1Opackets (17UKtobacco- 18 ackets
21	5467 of 2022 I	Quash of CC.No.lOOof 2022 pending onthefile of the Courtof SpecialJudicial MagistrateofFirst Class,prohibition zu'rd Excise, Sangareddy. titionersA1-A3 l	20(2)	270,273	Nil I l	Transportationof prohibitedgutkain carfrom Bidarto Hydcrabad. 33b:rgsofMiraj khainiZardaeacb bagcontains35 I)ackets.

¶519

Dr.CSL, .l CrlPN0.9062 of 2021 and batclt

¶520

|25|59s3
of
2022|lQuash of
SC
lNo.rsg of2022
lpending^onthefile
I^{of theCourtof}
]
I^{PrincipalSessions}
]
lJudge,^Medakat
lSangareddy.
|^{(petitionersA I A3)}]
titt
I|l2O(2)
r/w
⁷⁽²⁾

|'270,273|Nil|Illegally
transporting
prohibitedtobacco
packets.
(1)Onchilalonchipas
and56 boxes.
{2)baba
l2O
chewingtobacco
smalltins-6boxes.
(3)baba
l2O
chewingtobacco
tins-12boxes.
(4)baba
tobacco
sma1lpackets-13O
ladis.
(S)miraz tobacco-35
ladis.
(6)mahakchaini
tobacco-2bags.
(7)baba
160
tobacco-67 ladis.
I| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ||5983
of
2022|Quash
of
CC.No.2O7of2022
pending onthefile
of the courtof
JudicialMagistrate
of F'irstClass,
Manugur.
etiti,rnersA1A3)|NII-|270,273|Nil|Transportingand
possession
of
banned
tobacco
products.
(1)Amberbigbags-
lo,
(2)VimalPanmasala
gutka-5Opackets
I| |27
I
I|6034
of
2022|Quash
of
FIR.N,I.227
of
2O22ofBalanagar
police station.
Cyberabad.
(petitioners
A1
&42)
I|6(B)|273,l8ri,
420|NIL|
Sellinggutkaalrd
panspices.
(1).MirajTobacco-
35 packets,
(2)VimafTobacco
22 packets,
(3)VimalJardha-
22packets,
(4)
Sagar
Panmasala -
IOPackets,
(5)SR-1Jardha-
9packets,
{6)^RRPanmasala-
4Packets,
(7)
RR-Gold
04packets,
(8)SwagathGold
4packets,|

¶521

¶522

D..CSL J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2021 arLd batch

¶523

			t1tt			(9) RR-Miraj 6packets, (10)Bahubali Palmasa-la- 5packets, (11)BlueJardha- 5Packets, (t2l Raj NivasJardha- 3packets, (13) RajnivasParmasala- 3 Packets, (14)RajTobacco lPacket
2a	5985 of 2022	Quash^ofFIR No.51of2022ctf Bellampally I Town policc station, Ramagundam. (petitionersAI- A4)	ni1	270,273	Nil	Illegalsaleald transportationof bannedgutka packets. Amber-350 packets, M- scentedtobacco- 45packets,V1 tobacco- 190 ackets. I
29	6056 of 2022	Quash of CC.No.732 of2022 pending onthefile of the Courtof VI[[ AdditionalChiet Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. (sole accused)	20(2)	i8u.273, 336	Nil I	Purchasingand transporting of] banned tobacco productsfrom Bidar to Hyderabad. (I)RRtobacco-13 bags, (2

¶524

¶525

Dr.CSl-, J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2O21 atui batctt

¶526

I	I I I			T-- I		ackets cartoon), (lo)Babal2OlO boxes, (11)Baba120-4 boxes(eachbox 2OOgms), (12) BabaBlack-24 box, (13)Babal2O-12 boxes, (14)Baba120-5 boxes, (15)Ratna-4boxes, (16)Chaini-6bags (17)Milano ciga-rettes-2 boxes (i8) Mond cigarettes-1 box (19)Gudanggararn- Ibox (2O)Swagath Tobacco-4 packets, (21)AmberTobacco 4
30	6058 of 2022 I	ol of on thc XVI Quash CC.No.IO6!) 2O2Ipentling the hlcol Court of Additiorral Metropolitan Magistrate Cybcrabad Rajendranagar. titionerAI irI	3(M), 20l2l	273,rAA, 420 I	Nil I	Illegally transporting prohibitedgutka packets. (1)R.Rgoldtobacco -^3Obags (2)Pa-nRaghecr6O bags.
3l rl	5804 of 202')	Quash of Cr.No.188<tf2022 of Chikkaclapallv police statioll, Hyderal;ad. (petitionerAl&A2) I	20l2l	273,272	NIL	Purchasingancl sellingofbannecl tobaccoproclucts. (I)H-l0 Bannecl Cigarettes -27 Packets, (2)Tobacco-)bags, (3)GoldTabacco- 2Bags, (4) KPDoublcBlack Tobar:r'o-4Rags,

¶527

¶528

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9062 o[ 2021 attd batclL

¶529

						(5)V-lTobacco1 Bag, (6) RaiaKhaini Tobacco-2Bags, (7)SwagathGolcl Tobacco-4Bags, (8)MirajTobacco-I Carton, (9) Loose Tobacco- 25 Packets, (IO)RR tobacco- packets, (11) SagarPan Masala-IBag, (12)TOPanMasala -ICarton, (13)RRPan Masala -1Bag, (1a)RajNivasPan Masala-2Bags (15) VimalPan Masala 8Bags, (16124CaretPan Masala -5Boxes.
32 l1	5805 of 2022	Quash of CC.No.284 of2O22 pendingon thefrle of the Courtof juclicialmagistrate of firstclassand excise court sangareddy. (Sole accused)	3(M), 24lt) tl	272,).88 I I I	NIL	Iilegal transportationof banncd tobacco productssuchas gutkapanmasala from Bidar to Hyderabad. l)RR miraj-Ibag, 2)RRpanmasala-3 bags, 3)RR^jardha-3bags, 4)sagarpanmasala - 2bags, S)sagar^jardha2 bags, 6)swagath-Ibag, 7)vima1panmasal- 6 bags, S)vima1^jardha-6 tlqcs.
1..	5806 ()f 2022 i	rlrlof iQuash of ,^{CC.No.105of 2022} rpcndingon thefilc ro[ thcCo	20(2)	270,273	NIL	Selling ofgutkaand tobaccoproducts. (1)Miragepackets

¶530

¶531

1<sup>(',!;t.. .l ( rll)No.'')O6) oJ ro) ) r0(l l)alclt

¶532

|I||.JudiciatMagistrate
ofFirstClass,
Medak.
(soleaccused)|||l
I
I|l12)^VimalpacketsI
2oo+s.(3)
I
I^SagarPackets35O,I
| 1+ysc-r^packets-|
l:o+.
I
I^{(slv I packets}225,I
|^(rr)Btue^euil|
lpackersI5O,
I
)^tzl
SwagatGold-|
Iloo.
I
l(S)Ct-triniPackets-|
l:.,
I
I{9) BanarsiPacketsI
I^zr.
I
|1Lo1^{a-b.rpackets,}I
Itoo.
I
]1t^{t;zrranapactets-}|
I^rz.
I
i1Lz1^{t-atccfpackets}I
23.
I
(13)
SwapnaI
Dzrckets.l
I| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |34|6l05
of
2022|Quash
of
CC.No.168ol2022
penclingontlreflle
ofthe.Courtof
Judicierl Magistrate
of FrrstClass,
Narayankhed,
San
dd|20(2)|273|I^rutr-
1|I^{Purchasingtobacco}I
I^{produ.tsatlower}
I
prlce
andI
transportingr.-"
I
If.o*
Bidar
toI
lNizamabad.
I
IA-b".tobacco -70|
I^brgbags.
I|

¶533

B. In the light of the said factual scenario. it has to be seen whether the provisions of law mentioned therein attracts the allegations laid. The points thus emerges for consideration are:

¶534

(1)Whether being ln possession and hauing found inuolued either in transportlng or selling the tobacco products like cigarettes, gutkd, c:haini, etc., attract the prouisions of COTP Act,2OO3.

¶535

¶536

DT.CSI-, J ('rtl'No.9162 of 2O21 dttd bdtclt

¶537

(2) Whether the acts oJ[ Possessing,^transporting or selling tobacco products like^cigarettes' gutka, chaini, etc attract the provisions^{of the} Indian Penal Code, 1860^{more particularlg} Secttons 788, 269, 27O,^{272, 273' 278' 328} read with 577, 336,^{4O9 and 42OIPC.}

¶538

(3) Whether either transporting or^{selling or} possessing tobacco products like^cigarettes' gutka, chaini, etc attrdcts^{Section59(1) of} Food Safetg and Standards^{Act, 2OO6.}

¶539

(4)Whether there exists ang^{justifiable grounds to} inaoke the pouter^{granted to this Court under} Section 482 Cr.P.C. and^{to quashthe}

¶540

proceedings that are^{pending against the} petitioners as Praged for.

¶541

9.Point No.1:-

¶542

Whether being in^{possession and hauing} found irutolaed either in transporting^{orselling the} tobacco products like cigarettes,^{gutka, chain|} etc., attract the^{prouisionso;f COTPAct,2OO3'}

¶543

Making their submissions,^{thelearned counsel} appearing for the^{petitionersuiz., Sri Y.BalaMurali,} Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy, Sri^{Ravat-raboinaPrasad,} Sri Veerjala Praveen Kumar,^{Sri Balakisti Srinivas Reddy,} Sri Nanda Kishore Amarchand^{Yadav, Sri S.Sat1'anarayana} Murthy, Sri G.Ravi Chandra^{Sekharand Sri M.R.Boggula}

¶544

¶545

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.()062 of 2021 (md batch

¶546

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 ttre Central Finance Minister to Rajya Sabha. Learned 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 iurther, none of the provisions of COTP Act, 2OO3 attracts the alleged acts committed by the petitioners even if it is presumed that the story of the prosecution is true ald correct and therefore, the proceedings that are initiated against them are unsustainable in the eye of lau,.

¶547

1O. Quit,r contra, the learnecl Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that use ol tobacco products is injurious to health, and that Rules ernd Regulations u,ere framed by the

¶548

¶549

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9062 o[^2O21 ottd batch

¶550

Government to^{restrict the use oftobaccoproducts'} Learned Assistant^{PublicProsecutoralso contendedthat} there is a^{mandatory requirement to exhibit on the overleaf} of the tobacco^{productssold that the said product is} injurious to health^{if consumed and wide publicityis also} being given^{by the Government to restrict the use of} tobacco products^{and thus, possession of hugequantity of} tobacco products^{is a punishableoffence' The test of the} veracity of the^{submissions made should be based on the} provisions contained^{in the relevant legislationi'e'' COTP} Act, 2003.^{As rightly submitted by learned Assistant Public} Prosecutor,^{it has been accepteduniversallythat the major} share of annual^{deaths in the country is due to use of} tobacco products.^{By the date of introductionof COTP Act'} 2003, it was^{estimated that eightlarkhs deaths annuallyin} the country^{are due to the use of tobacco products directly} or indirectly.^{When theparliamentarycommittee} recommended^{that there is aneed for comprehensive} legislation to^{prohikrit advertisemetlt regarding use of} tobacco^{products and for regulating the production'supply} and distribution ol^{tobaccoproductsincluding cigarettes'}

¶551

¶552

Dr.('SL, J CrlPNo.9O62 oJ 2O21 and betclt

¶553

the Cigarertes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production. Suppl-v and Distribution) Bill was introduced. The said tlill having been passed by both the Houses of Parliament and having received the ascent of the President oIl 18 05 11003, came into force as 'Cigarettes and Other Tobacco l)roducts (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation ol Trerde and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distrilrr,rtion) Act, 2003. The COTP Act, 2OO3 besides prohibitinp, smoking ln public places, also prohibits advertisemcnt of cig;rrettes and tobacco products. Further, the COTI) i\ct. 2003 prohibits sale of cigarettes and tobacco products ti) zr person below the age of 18 years and in an area^q'ithin a radius of 1OO yards of any educational institution

¶554

1 1. Comrng to thc cases taken up lor adjudication, Police made ac.ctrsation th:rt Sections 3(m), 5, 6(bl, 7(2l,, 715), 20(2l,,21(l) ancl 23 ol COTP Act, 2O03 attracts to the acts committed br- tl'rc petitioners, though not collectivelv.

¶555

¶556

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 of2o21 ond lntclt

¶557

Therefore, for proper understanding,^{the said provisions}

¶558

afe extracted as under:-

¶559

Section 3(m) of COTP Act,^{2OO3reads as under:-}

¶560

"sale", with its grammatical variations^{artd cognate} expressions, 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} wholesale or retail, and inciudes^{an agreement for} sale, and offcr for salc and^{exposure for sale".}

¶561

Section 5 of COTP Act, 2O03^{reads as under:-}

¶562

"Prohibition of advertisement of^{cigarettes and} other tobacco^products- (1) No person engaged in, or^{purportedto be} engaged in tl-rc production,^{supplyor distribution} of cigarettes or any^{othertobaccoproductsshall} advcrtise and no^{personhaving control over a} medium shall cause to^{be advertised cigarettesor} any other tobacco^{productsthrough that medium} and no person shall^take Part^inany advertisement s.hich directly^orindirectly suggests or promotes the^{use or consumptionof} cigarcttes or any other^{tobaccoproducts-}

¶563

(2) No person, for any direct or indirect^pecuniary bcnc{it, shall-

¶564

(a) rlisplay, cause to display, or^permitor authorise to display any^{advertisementof} cigarettes or arty othcr tobacco^{product; or}

¶565

¶566

Dr CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2021 @td betch

¶567

(b) r;ell or cause to se1l, or permit or authorise to sell :l film or video tape containing advertisement of cif]arettes or any other tobacco product; or

¶568

(c) dLstribute, cause to distribute, or permit or aulhorise to distribute to the public any 1eaflet, hancl-bill or document which is or which contains an .rdvertisement of cigarettes or any other tobar;co product; or

¶569

(d) erect, exhibit, hx or retain upon or ovcr any land building, wa1l, hoarding, frame, post or structure or upon or in any vehicle or sl'rall display in any manner whatsoever in any place any advertisemeot of cigarettes or any other toba<;co product:

¶570

Provi,led that this sub-section shall not apply in relat on to-

¶571

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

¶572

(B) zrdvertisement of cigarettes or any other tobat:co product which is displayed at thc entrtince or inside a warehouse or a shop^r,l,here ci€aarettes and any other tobacco products are offerr:d for distribution or sale.

¶573

(3) No person, shall, under a contract or othcrwisc prorrrote or agree to promote the Llse or cons umption of-

¶574

(a) ci5iarettes or any other tobacco product; or

¶575

(b) arLy trade mark or brand name ol cigarettes or any other tobacco product in cxchange for a

¶576

¶577

Dr.CSL. J CtlPNo.9062^{of 2021} attd batclt

¶578

sponsorship,^{gift, prize or scholarshipgiven} or agreed to be^{given by another person"'}

¶579

Section 6(b)^{of COTP Act, 2OO3reads as under :-}

¶580

"Prohibition^{onsale ofcigaretteorother} tobacco^{products to a person below the age of} eighteen^{years and in particulararea:-}

¶581

(b) in an area within^{a radius of onehur.rdred} yards of any^{educational institution"}

¶582

Sections^{7(21 and 7(5) of COTPAct, 2003 reads as under:-} "Restrictions on^{trade and commerce in'and} production,^{supply and distributionof} cigarettes^{and other tobacco products:-}

¶583

(2) No person^{sha1l carry on tradeor commcrceit-r} cigarettes or^{any other tobacco products ut-rlcss} every package^{of cigarettes or any othcr tobacco} distributed^{bY hiln} products sold, supplied^or bears thereon, or on^its labe1, the^sPecified warning.

¶584

(5) No person shall,^{directly or indirectly'produce'} supply oi^{distributecigarettes orany othcr} tobacco^{products unless everypackageof} cigarettes^{or anyother tobacco products} produced, supplied^{ordistributcdbyhim} inclicates^{thereon,or on its label' the nicotine and} tar contents^{on each cigaretteor as thc casc maY} be on other^{tobaccoproductsalongrT 'ith the} maximum^{permissiblelimitsthereof-}

¶585

¶586

l)r.CSL, J (:rlPNo.9O62 of 2O21 antl batch

¶587

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

¶588

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

¶589

"Punishment for failure to giwe specified warning and nicotine and tar contents:-

¶590

(2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tr>bacco products which do not contain either on l,he package or on their labt:I, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar (:ontents shall in the case of Iirst conviction be punishable u,ith imprisonment for a term, which mav extend to one year, or with fine which mav extend to one thousand rupees, or u.ith both, and, for the second or subsequcnt conviction, u,ith imprisonment for a term which mrlv extend to two years and with fine r,r,hich ma1' cxtend t() three thousand rupees".

¶591

Section 23 of COTP Act. 2O03 reads as under:

¶592

"Forfeiture of advertisement and advertisement

¶593

material:-Where any person has been convicted under this Act for the contrerventron of the provision of section 5, the advertisemcnt :rnd the advertisement material lor cigarettes an<l other tob:rcco products ma,v bc frrrleited to the Government ancl suclr aclvt.rLiscment and

¶594

¶595

DT.CSL' J {:rlPNo.9O62^{of 2021} and botclt

¶596

advertisement^{material shalt bc disposedof in} such manner^{as may be prescribedby rules madc} under^{this Act".}

¶597

Section^{24(1) ofCOTPAct' 2OO3reads as under:}

¶598

"Punishment^{for sale of cigarettesor any other} tobacco Products^{incertain placesorto} persons below^{the age of eighteenyears-} (1) Any^{person who cor-rtravcnes thc provisions of} section^{6 shall be guilty of an oflenceunderthis} Act and^{shall be punishable with fine vn'hic:h may} extend^{to two hundredruPces"'}

¶599

The^{fact that the petitioners^Iere in possessionof} tobacco^{productsis borne by record' The allegation in some} cases is^{that they were merel-y inpossession' insome} cases,^{they were transporting and in other cases' they kept} the tobacco Products^{for sale'}

¶600

A^{meticulous perusal of theafore-mentioned} provisions^{makes it abundantlyclear that the prohibition is} not in^{toto. The COTP Act' 2003 lays dor'r'nthata person is} ol' distributing prohibited^{from producing'supplving} tobacco^{products directly or indirectly^'here the packageof} those^{products does not bear a label giving specified}

¶601

¶602

D..CSL, J CrtPNo.9O62^{of 2021} ond batch

¶603

warning in^{such style and type prescribed' Section8 lays} down the^{marlnerin which specificwarning shall be made'} Likewise,^{Section9 givesdetails oi the languagein which} the said^{specified u'arning shall be expressed'In the same} mannerr the^{sizeof letters and figures is prescribedunder} Sectionlr].Itisnotthecaseoftheprosecutingagencythat the petitroners^{were inpossessionof tobacco products} which does^{not bear such a label in the prescribedmanner} or in such^{a language that is prescribed or in such size of} letters and^{figures that is prescribed' Therefore' itcan} undoubtedty^{be held that Section 3 (m) which defines the} '"r,ord^{"sale", Section 7(2) whichimposes restriction on trade} and conrmerce^{of tobacco productsw"ithout there beinga} prescribed label^{of specified warning' Section7(5) which} prohibits production,^{supply or distribution of cigarettesor} any other^{tobaccoproductswhich does not containa label} regarding the^{nicotine and tark content'Section2O(2)} whic'h prohibits^{sale or distribution of cigarettesor tobacco} products u'hich^{does not contain the specifiedwarning on} the pat:kage,^{attracts to the facts of the case'}

¶604

¶605

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9o62 of 2o21 and bdtch

¶606

Coming to the offence^punishable under^{Section 24(Il} of COTP Act, 2003, the said^{provisionmakesa person who} contravenes Section 6 of the^{COPT Act punishable.Section} 6 of the said Act^{prohibits sale, offer to sell, permitsale of} cigarettes or any other^{tobacco products to a person who is} below the age of 18^years or in^{a-n area within a radiusof} 10o yards of an5z educational institution'

¶607

In Criminal Petition^{Nos.5894and 5090 of 2O22, the} allegation is that^{petitioners therein contravened Section 6} of COTP Act, 20O3 s'hich^{is punishableunder Sectio n 24(l)} thereof. Holvever, the contents of^{F.I.R. in both the cases} does not disclose any mention^{that the petitioners therein} were either found selling or^{have sold or promotedthe sale} of the alleged tobacco^{products or cigarettesto any person} who is belou' the age of 18^{years or at arr area within a} radius of l0O l ards of any^{educational institution.} Therefore, the allegation that^{they have contravened} Section 6 of the COTP Act,^{2OO3 and thereby,theyare} liable to bc^pur.rishecl under^{Secti on 2a$lthereof is} unsustainable. Therefore,^{this court considersthat noneof}

¶608

¶609

Dr.Cs/,, .i (lrll'No.90tt2 of 202 I und batclt

¶610

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

¶611

Thor,rgh 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 b_y the public, to prohibit production, transportation and sale of those products, there is no specific provision in the COTP Act, 2003 vvhich makes such production, transportation and sale of the tobacco products a prohibited offence. 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 same has to be taken into consideration for disposal o1- the present criminal petitions. It is not out of place to rnention that for treatment of tobacco related diseases, rhe victims and their families are laving their lives and there are more than eight lakhs causalities every

¶612

¶613

Dr.CSL, J CrlI'No.9O62 of 2O21 ond batclt

¶614

year in the country due to direct or indirect use^of tobacco related products which includes cigarettes, chaini,^gutkha, etc. Also, it is estimated that loss of^{productivity due to use} of these products is almost Rs. 13,500/-^{crores annually.} That means, the revenue^generated through^{the tobacco} industry is worthless in the light^of the^{annualcausalities} and loss of productivity due to use^{of those products.}

¶615

17 . Article 47 of the Constitution of India^{casts a duty} upon the State to raise the level of^{nutrition and the} standard of living of its^people. It^{also states that the State} should take steps for improvement^{of public health as the} same is its primary duty. It also lays^{down that the State} shall endeavour to bring about prohibition^{of consumption} of intoxicating drinks which are injurious^{to health'This} provision is under Part-IV of the Constitutior-r of^India vyhich la,vs down the Directive principles^{of StatePolicy-} Basing on the said salutary^{provision, the legislature b)' its} vvisdom ought have framed a stringent legislation^which prohibits the transportation, storage and sale of^the tobacco products. However, such a^{legislation has not yet}

¶616

¶617

Dr.CSL, .I Crll'No.9062 oI2021 atld betclt

¶618

seen the light of the day. The only legislation that is invoked tirne 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 tl:lat 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 100 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 an5, of the provisions of the COTP Act, 2003. Therefore, this court holds that the petitioners cannot be held to have committed offences punishable under the provisions of the COTP Act, 2OO3.

¶619

18.Point No.2:-

¶620

Whether the acts oJf possessing, transporting a'r selling tobacco products like cigarettes, gutkd, chrr'ini, etc attract the prouisions oJ the

¶621

¶622

Dr'CSL'^J c-rtPNo.9062^ol2O21 rrnd botch

¶623

Indian^{Penal Code' 7860 more pdrticuldrlg} 328 Sections^{788, 269, z?o' zzz,} -273'^278' iJ"i"*t is77,^{s36,4oe and 42o IPc'}

¶624

Apart^{from the Provrstonsof COTP Act, 2003' the} a,lso^{alleged that thepetitioners} prosecuting^agency committed^{offences punishableunder different provisions} of Indian^{Penal Code' 1860' Though not collectiveiy'there} is an^{allegation that the petitionersin different cases have} committedoffencesattractingSectionslaa'269,27o,272' 273,^{278,328read with51 1' 336' 409 and 42O IPC'}

¶625

19.^{An offencein normal parlance is an act that violates} a particular^{law and requiresa particuiar punishment'}

¶626

20.^{As per Section 4O of lndian Penal Code' an "offence"} denotes^{a thing that is punishable under the said Code'}

¶627

of the Prosecuting^{agencYis thatbY} 21.^{The versron} involving^{in the acts of transporting'stonng'selling and} alike^{the tobacco products in huge quantit'' the petitioners} have^{committedoffences punishable underthe relevant} provisions^{of the lndian Penal Code , 1860. Therefore, it has} of the Prosecution^is to be^{seen whether the verslon}

¶628

¶629

Dr.CSL, J Crll'No.9O62 oJ 2021 and batch

¶630

genuine and \i,hether there are any justifiable grounds for the prosecuting agencv to continue prosecution against the petitioners in respect ol those offences.

¶631

Secl.ion 188 IPC makes the person who disobeys the order duly promulgated by public servant punishable. The said provision reads as follou,s:-

¶632

"188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.-Whocver, knowing that, by an order pron-rulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain propcrty in his possession or under his mana!{ement, disobel.s such direction, shall, if such disobcdience causcs or tcnds to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury,, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to anv person lawfully employed, be punishecl u,ith simple imprisonment for a term which ma1, extend to onc month or with line which ma), extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if sucl-r disobediencc callscs or trends to cause danger to hurnan life, health or safcty, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affrar', shall be punished with impri:;onment of either dt,scription for a term which m tr',. r-xtcnd to six months, or *.ith fine which may exten,l to one thotrsancl r-upees, or with both. Expla nation.-It is not r.lcc('ssary that the offender

¶633

3z+

¶634

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2O21 @nd batclt

¶635

should intend to produce harm, or^{contemplate his} disobedience as likely to produce^{harm.It is sufficient} that he knows of the order^{which he disobeys, and} that his disobediencc^produces, or^{islikeiy to} produce, harm."

¶636

Therefore, by the above^provision, it^{is clear that if} an order is^{promulgatedby a publicservant who is lawfully} empowered to promulgate such^{an orderand when a} person knowingly disobeys the said order,^{he wouldbe} guilty of the act of disobeving that^{order and wouldbe} liable for punishment under^{Section188 IPC.}

¶637

Horvever, in the case on hand, there^{is nothingon} record to show 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^{promulgatedby the public servant in respect} of the activities that^{u'ere 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^{proceedingsagainst the petitioners under} such a provision is unsustainable^{in law.}

¶638

¶639

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9062 of 2021 etld batcll

¶640

In ce.se, any person does an act either unlawfully or negligently u,hich is likely to spread the infection of any disease danrgerous to life, he shall be held liable under Section 269 IPC. The said provision reads as follows:-

¶641

"Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.^*Whoever unlawfuliy or negligently does ar,y act which is, and which he knows or has rcason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of anv clisease dangerous to life, shal1 be punished with irrrprisonment of either description for a term rvhich na], extend to six months, or with fline, or with hroth .

¶642

It is not the case of the prosecuting agency that at-Iy of the petitioners against whom such accusation is made have done any such act either unlawfully or^negligentlv u,hich is 1ike1y to spread the infection of any^disease dangerous to life. None of the activities, if any, aiieged^to have been rrndertaken by the petitioners like transporting, storing or selling the totracco products can^{be termed to be} unlas,ful or negligent acts which are likely to^{spread the} infection o1' any disease dangerous to life.^Therefore,it cannot be held that the petitioners against^{rvhom suchan} accusation is made would be liable for the^{said r:ffence.}

¶643

¶644

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.9O62 of2O21 arLd bolch

¶645

It is also the allegation of the^{prosecuting agency that} some of the petitioners have involved in the act^of spreading the infection of disease^{dangerousto life and} thereby, committed the offence^{punishable under Section} 270 rPc.

¶646

Section 27O IPC^{prescribes punishmentfor} committing malignant acts^{which are likely to spread} infection of disease dangerous to^{life. The said provision} reads as under:-

¶647

"Malignant act likely to spread infection^of disease dangerous to llfe.-Whoever^malignaltly clocs any act which is, and^{which he knows or has} rcason the believe to be, likely^{tospread the} inlcction of any disease dangerous^{to life, shallbe} punished with imprisonment of either^description for .i tcrm which may extend^{to two years, or with} fine , or with both."

¶648

Though use of tobacco^{products reportedlyis said to} cause diseases like cancer^{etc., spread of infection through} use of tobacco products or^{by sale of tobaccoproducts is} not rcported anywhere.^Even the^{learnedAssistant Public} Prosecutor failed to state how the^{acts alleged to have been} committcd by the petitioners^{falls within the ambit of}

¶649

¶650

Dr CSL, J ('rll'No.9O('2 of 2O21 dtld hltch

¶651

Section 27C lPC. No material rvhatsor:ver is on record to shor.l, that either possessing or selling or transporting the tobacco products like gutka, etc., would spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life. Thcrefore, this court is of the view that quoting of the said provision and booking a case with an allegation that tl-re acts committed by the petitioners would fall within tl.re ambit of the said provision of law is unsustainable.

¶652

It is also alleged that some of the petitioners have involved in the process of adulteration. The process of adulteration would mean making the said article \,hich is sub.jected to adulteration noxious. Thor-rgh the u,ord 'adulteration' and 'adulteralt' are not specificallv defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, u.e car-r find the dellnition of 'adulterant' in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Section 3(a) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines what an 'adulterant' means. It reacls as under:-

¶653

"adulterant" means any material n,hich is or could be employed for makir-rg the foocl rrnsaft' or substandard or mis-branded or conta intng extraneous matter."

¶654

¶655

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

¶656

3 1. Therefore, it is to be shown that some article or material is employed in some other articlc rvhich is intended to be^. used as food or drink to makc the same unsafe and noxious for consumption. Sectiort 272 IPC reads as under:-

¶657

'Adulteration^{offood or drinkintendedfor} sale.-Whoever adulterates any article ol food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or clrink or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished '"r,ith imprisonment of either description for a term rt'hich may extend to six months, or rvith fine u'hich may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

¶658

There is no material on record to shou- that the persons against whom such an allegation i.e., that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 272 IPC is made, have used or employed any material in an article which is to be used for consumption as lood or drink so as to make the said article unsafe or sub-standard or noxious. Therefore, this court holds that invoking the said provision is bad in lau'

¶659

¶660

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

¶661

It is ilso the allegation that son-re of the petitioners were involved in selling of noxious food and thereby, committed offence punishable under Sectiot:. 273 IPC Section 27.) IPC reads as under:-

¶662

'Sale^{of noxious food or drink.-Whoeversells,} or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxiou s, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knorving or having reason to believe that the same is noxior- s as food or clrink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extcnd to six months, or u,ith fine which may extenci to one thousand rupces, or with both."

¶663

Thotrgh the r,r,ord 'food' is not delined in Indian Penal Code, I B(,0, \7e can get the de finition of 'food' from the Food Safety and Stanclards Act, 2O06. Section 3(j) of the Food Saft'tv and Standards Act, 2006 defines the word 'food'. It is incumbent at least to pima /acie project that the articir r,r hich u,as found in possession of the petitioners was offcrtd lbr salc or exposcd fbr sale and the said food has becorne noxious or is in a state unfit to use as food or drink. AC mittedl,y, the articles that ivere seized from the possession of the petitioners does r-rot fall within the ambit of the definilion either 'foocl'or '<lrink'. Therefore. this court

¶664

¶665

DT.CSL' J CrlPNo.9O62^{of 2O21} and batch

¶666

holds that^{none of lhe petitionerswould become liable for} the punishment^{prescribed under Section 273IPC'} Therefore'initiationofproceedingsagainstthepetitioners for the^{said offence doesnot holdgood'}

¶667

35.ItisnotatalltheVersionoftheprosecutingagency that the^{acts of the petitioners had made the atmosphere} noxious^{to heaith' Without any avermentto that effect' the} prosecuting^{agenc)'alleged that someof the Petitioners} herein^{have committecl the offence punishableunder} Section^{27aWC, u'hichreads as under:-}

¶668

'Making^{atmosphere noxiousto health'-Whoever} voluntarily^{vitiales the atmosphere in any place so} as to makc^{it noxious to the health of persons in} general^{dwcllrngorcarryingon businessinthe} neighbourhood^{or passingalong a public way'shall} be punishcd^{with finc u'hich may extend to five} hundrcd^ruPCCS"

¶669

No provision^{in any legislation'rule or regulation is} brought^{to ti'le llotlceof this courtu'hich laYs that the} storage^{of articles like gutka orother tobaccoProducts} vitiates the^{atmosphereof the said place so as to make it} noxioustothehealthofpersonsingenera.ldwellingor

¶670

¶671

Dr.(:SL, J CrlPNo.9O62 oJ 2O21 rurd l>atclt

¶672

carrying on business in the neighbourhood or for those persons \,1ro \,ould pass along a public way. Withollt there being at Ieasr a whisper to that effect, making a mention of the said F,rovision in the F.l.R. and contending that the case fits into that provision cannot be appreciated 37 . It r s zrlso the allegation that some of the petitioners have att ern pted to commit the offence punishable under Section ..i28 IPC. Section 328 IPC reads as under:-

¶673

"Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit and olfence.-Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person :tn' pt.rison or any stupefying, intoxicating or rrrru'h,rlesome drug, or other thing with intent to r:ause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knou,ing it to be likely that he will therebv cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de sr:ription for a term which may extend to ten ycars. and shall also be liable to fine."

¶674

For bringing the case within the ambit of the said provision. it is incumbent to show that the person/persons u,ith an inte'ntion to cause hurt have administered or have caltsed arl, person to take the following materials:

¶675

llOlS()n^C,r

¶676

¶677

Dr CSL, .l CrlPNo.9O62 of 2O21 artd batcll

stupefying drug or

intoxicating drug or

unwholesome drug or

other thing.

The above acts must have been^{done with an} intention to cause hurt to such^{person against whomthe} said act is committed or with an^{intentionto commitor} facilitate the commission^of an^{offence or knowing it to be} likely that he will thereby cause hurt.^{Mere transportation/} possession/sale of tobacco products^{does not mean that} they u,ere in tended to be administered^{to any person or} persons u'ith an intention to cause hurt.^{Therefore,the} investigating agency^{grossly erred in bookinga case against} the petitioncrs herein under the^{said provision.Even a} charge for attempting to commit^{the said offence i.e., the} offence under Section 328 read^{with 51 1 IPC cannotbe} appreciated.

¶683

It is also the case of the^{prosecutingagenc)' that} the petitioners have committed^{acts endangeringlife or} personal safct,v of others fatling within the^{ambit of Section} 336 lPC. Section 336^{IPC reads as under:-}

¶684

13 Dr.( SL, J ('rll'No.9062 ct[ 2O21 (ttd l)otclt

¶685

"Act endangering^{life orpersotral safety of} others -Whoever does any act^{sorashlv or} negligently as to endanger human^{life orthe} personal safety of others, shall be^{pLrnishe(1 $Iilh} imprisonment of either description^{for a term which} may extend to three months^{or with fine which may} extend to two hundred and fifty^{rupees, or ll'ith} both."

¶686

Which act or acts were done^{rashlyor negligently by} the petitioners so as to endanger human^{life or personal} safety of others is not stated^{anywhere.Rasirnessis not} even remotely shown and^{negligenceis not projected' As} earlier discussed, no rule or regulation^{is brought to the} notice of this court regarding^{the transportation/ storage/} sale of tobacco products.^{Therefore, this court holds that} the petitioners cannot be held to^{have committed the} offence punishable under^{Section 336 IPC.}

¶687

41 . It is not the case of the^{prosecutingagencv that the} petitioners in the capacity of^{public servantsor in the} colrrse of doing the business as^{bankers,merchants,} factors, brokers, attorneys or^{agentscommittcd the oflence} of criminal breach of trust, '"r'hich^{ri'ou1cl firll u'ithin the} ambit of Section 409 IPC. Section^{409 tPC reads as under:-}

¶688

¶689

Dr.CSL, J CrtPNo.9062 of 2021 at(l botch

¶690

'Criminal^{breachof trust by public servant, or by}

¶691

banker, merchant or agent.-Whoevcr,^{beir-rg in} any manner entrusted with^property, or^{with any} dominion over property in his^{capacityof a public} servant or in the way of his business^{as a banker,} merchant, factor, broker,^{attorney or agent, commits} criminal breach of trust in^{respectof th.rt propertv,} shall be punished with imprisonment^{for lifc, or ri'ith} imprisonment of either description^{for a term lvhich} may extend to ten^{years, and shall also be liable to} fine."

¶692

Thus, only if a^person is^{entrusted with propertyor} with any dominion over the^{property and such person in} his capacity either as

Public servant or

Banker or

Merchant or

Factor or

Broker or

Attorney or

Agent

commits criminal breach^{of trust in respcct of the} entrusted property, he^{wouldbe termedto have committed} the offence of criminal breach^{of trust fallingu'ithinthe}

¶701

¶702

Dt .CSL, J CrU'No.9062^{of 2021} ond batch

¶703

ambit of secrtion 409^{IPC. It is not the case with any of the} petitioners herein.^{Therefore,the prosecutingagency went} wrong in invoking^{the said provision of law'}

¶704

Finally,^{it is also alleged that some of the petitioners} have committed^{the offencepunishable underSection420} IPC which deals^{with cheatingand dishonestly inducing} delivery of^{propertv- The said provisionreadsas under:-}

¶705

'Cheating^{and dishonestlyinducing deliveryof} property.-Whoever^{cheatsand therebydishonestly} induce's the^{person deceived to dcliverany property} to any person,^{or to make, alter or destroy the whole} or any part of^{a valuable securitv' or anything which} is sigr-recl or sealed,^{and n'hich is capable of being} converted into^{a valuable sccuritl',shall be punished} with imprisonment^{of either description for a term} which may extend^{to seven vcars, and shall also be} liable to fine-"

¶706

The word^{'cheating' is defined undersection 415}

¶707

IPC. The said^{provision reads as under:-}

¶708

'Cheating.-Whoever,^{by deceiving any person'} fraudulently^{or <lishonestlr'' incir'x:es the pcrsonso} deceived to deliver^{any propertv t() :lny person, or to} consent that^{an)'personshall rctail'ranv property'} or intentionzrllv^{inducesthe persott so deceived to} do or omit tcl^{clo anything u'hichhe u'ould not do or}

¶709

¶710

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

¶711

omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause darnage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat,,.

¶712

Which person \i,as deceived fraudulently or dishonestly and which person so deceived was ordered to deliver any property or to consent to do so is not stated anywhere. Even an omission in that regard which is prohibited is not projected anJ.where. It is not the case of tJre 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 ^ras invoked is not even stated by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Therefore, the prosecuting agency grossly erred in invoking the said provision of law.

¶713

The entire version of the investigating agency is that the petitioners \:ere involved in the business of possessing/ transporting/ storing/ selling of tobacco products like gutka, chaini, etc. There is no whisper that the said products u'ere banned bv the competent authority. No legislation is brought ro the notice of this court to show

¶714

¶715

Dr.CSt,, J CrlPNo.9062 of 2021 etk) batch

¶716

that poss;ession of tobacco products ui-z., gfika and alike and in.o ving in the business ol selling those products is banned alld committing such acts is declared as disobe<iir'nce to order duly promulgated by a public servant, or that the acts committed would amounts to public nr risirnce or those acts are likely to spread infection of disease clangerous to life, or noxious for consumption as food or- rlrink u,hose sale is prohibited, or that possession of lobacc:o products makes the atmosphere noxious to health, or there \rras an attempt to administer those products to any person with an intention to cause hurt, or that th ose acts amounts to rashlv or n egligen t1-v cndange ring lile or personal safety of others or amounts to crimir-ial breach of trust or cheating. Therefore, the provisior-rs irrvoked urz., Sections l8B, 269, 27O, 272, 273, 278, 328 read^q,ith 511, 336, 409 and 42O IPC does not at trrtcr to the bundle of facts that are projected b,v the lnvestrgatlng agency.

¶717

¶718

Dr.CSl,, J CrlPNo.9062 of 2O2¹ otTd bolch

¶719

47.Point No.3:-

¶720

Whether either transporting or selling or possessing tobacco products like cigarettes' gutka, chaini, etc attracts Section 59(1) of Food Safetg and. Standards Act, 2O06.

¶721

It is also alleged by the prosecuting agency that^some of the petitioners contravened section^{59(1) of the Food} Safety ar.rd Standards Act, 2O06.

¶722

The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006^isa consolidation of laws relating to food in the^{country which} lays dor.r,n the basic standards for artcles^{of food and to} regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution^{and sale} so as to ensure safety and^{wholesomeness of food for} human consumption. Section 59(1)^of the^{Food Safety and} Standards Act, 2006^{prescribedpunishmentfor} manufacture or sale or storage^or distribution^{or importof} aly article ol food for human consumption^{which is} unsafe.

¶723

The vcrsion of the^{prosecutingagencyis that some} of the petitiorlers are liable for^{punishment under section} 59(1) of the Foocl Safety and Standards^{Act, 20O6.The said} provision reads as under:-

¶724

¶725

Ih CSI,, J t rli''t).)O,J) of 2O2I utltI bet.lt

¶726

"Punishment^{for unsafe food. Any person w['ro,} r^,hether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes.or imports any article of food for human consunption which is unsafe, shall be punishable, (i) wht:re such failure or contravention does not resuit )n injury, with imprisonment for a term rvhicl'r may extend to sk months and also with fine rvhicl-r may ertend to one lakh rupees."

¶727

As rightly projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners, to bring the case within the ambit of the said pror.ision r.e., Section 59(1), it has to be established that the articles found in the possession of the petitioners falls rvithin the ambit of the definition "food" as defined in the Food Salety and Standards Act, 2006. Section 3[) of the Food Safet_v and Standards Act, 2O06 define s u,hat "food" means anrl reads as under:-

¶728

"Food" means any substance, whcther processcd, partially processed or unprocessed, s,Irich is intended for human consumption and inclucies primary food to the extent deflne d in clausc (zk), genetically modilied or engineered foocl or lbod containing such ingredients, infant. food, packagcd drinking water, alcoholic drink, clrewing gttm, and any substance, including water userl into the lood during its manufacture, preparation or tr( atnrent

¶729

¶730

l)r.('SL..J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2O2 ] and bolclt

¶731

but does not include any animal^{feed, live animals} unless they are prepared or^{processedfor placingon} the market for human consumption,^{plants,priorto} harvesting, drugs and medicinal^products, cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic^substances: Provided that the Central Government^{may declare,} by notification in the Official^{Gazette,any other} article as food for the^purposes of^{this Act having} regards to its use, nature, substance^{or quality-"}

¶732

Indicating a view that the tobacco^{productsdoes not} fall within the ambit of the term^{"food", the High Courtof} Andhra Pradesh in the case^{betweenJaganath} Enterprises, Dluru Vasadhi Tripati^{Rao Vs. State of} A.P. through SHO Pamur P.5.,^{Prakasom DistrtctrePtd} bg Public Prosecutor, High Court^{at Amaraaathitat} paras 11 to 14 of the order heid as under:

¶733

" 1 1. The first and foremost issue to be clecidcd is thc applicability of the FSS Act to^{tobacco/tobaccr.r} products ald the definition of^'food'. Section 3[]^of the FSS Act, defines'food'as^{a substancc, u'hich is} intended for humar consumption^{cotltaining such} ingredients as described in thc^{szricl dcfinition-Tl.rc} definition does not include animal^{lced, livc aninrals} etc. It also eiiminates the applicabilitv^{of n:rrcotit'} ar-rd psychotropic substanccs.^{Alcohol is au itcm}

¶734

'^{2020(I ) AL1' (Crl) 2 l5 (S.8.)}

¶735

¶736

Dr.CSL, J Crll'No.9062 oI2O21 and balch

¶737

which is included in the clefinition ol^'food'. The COTPA Act, rvhich is passed in 2OO3 (Act. No.34 of 2OO3) on thc other hancl defines in section 3(p) of the Ac,, the tobacco products. The clefinition states that the products specified in thc Schedule are tobacc,r products and the Schedule lists out 1O items zrs tobacco products. The_y are reproduced here under:

¶738

THE SCHEDULE Section3(p)

¶739

l.Cigarettes 2.Cigars

¶740

3.Cheroots

¶741

Beerlis

¶742

5.Cigarette tobac:co, pipe tobacco and hookah tobac<:o

¶743

6.Chewing tobacco

¶744

Snu ff 8.Pan masala or anv cheu,in!{ merterial having tobacco as one o[ its ingredients (bl Whatever name called).

¶745

9.gutkha

¶746

I 0.Tooth por.l'er cont.aining tobacco.

¶747

l2.Cigarettes, Chewing tobacco, I'an Masala, Cheu,ing matcrial^g,ith tobacco iirt' included in the tobacco products. Thereforc, a prinra fircir: reading of these Central enactments makt's it clear that tobacco products are only definerl undt:r thc COTPA Act and not undcr the FSS Act.^-lhc FSS Act, only talks ol^'foc-rd, rvl-rich is ir-rtt'n<led lirr human

¶748

¶749

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

¶750

consumption, which includes in it^{alcoholic drink,} but does not include any^{narcoticor psychotropic} substance.

¶751

The next section that^{ferlls for considerationis,} Section 56 of thc FSS^{Act, u'hich talks of penalty for} unhygienic or unsanitary^{processlor manufacture of} 'food'. Section 57 of the trSS Act,^{provides for the} penalty for a pe rson, rT'ho mixe^{s an adulterant with} the food. Adultcrant is dcscribed and^{defined in} Section 3(1)(a) of the FSS^{Act, as 'a material used or} could be used f<lr^{merking 'food' unsafe/sub-} standard etc. Thcrcforc, this^{section, in the opinion} of this Court, could or.rlv^{come into play when'food'} is adulteratecl. Section 58 of^{thc FSS Act, is a} general provision, rvhich providcs^penalt5lfor contraventions lor^{s'h it'h Ilootherpenalty is} provided. Section 59 ol thc FSS Act,^{dealswith the} penalty lor any person^{u'ho mat-rufactures or sale,} store, and distributcs^{:rnv article of 'unsafe food' for} human consumptiot-r.^{Se ct ion 63 of the FSSAct,} deals with the^{punisl'rmetltfor aperson or iood} business operator,^s ho^{nlzrnufitctures,stores any} article of^'food' rvithout^{licencc. Therefore,it is clear} from a readir-rg o[ the^{scctions,which are being} pressed into service bv the^{prosecution time and} again under the FSS^{Act, that trll of them relateto} 'food' and^'food articlcs r.rnly. Thc sections,^which have been pressctl ittto^{ser-r'ice,in the opinionof this} Court, do not appll to^a n^{articleu'hich isnot} meeting thc definitiorr^{ol'krocl.Scctiol't89 of the FSS}

¶752

¶753

Dr.CSL, J Crtl'No.9O62 of 2O21 and batc]l

¶754

Act, also providcs that it shall have a overriding eflecl frtm .lll other food related laws. Apart from a plain grartrmatical meaning which is supporting the decisior.r lakcn by this Court on tlte dehnition of food', I I'rr' dccisions of the Division Bench of the Allairalrixl l-iigl-r Court in M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (l\t.) Ltd., and another r,. State of U.P. {2O^{1 I (:2) Crimes 25O} squarelyapplies} to the facts ancl ci^-ctr mstances of this case. The learned Judges of tht All:rhabad Court have analysed various sections ol' lan, being pressed into service in that casc ancl concluded that the FSS Act applies only to '[ooci' rLlrcl lood items.

¶755

A lcatnt:d single Judge of the Calcutta High Court irr tlre case of Sanjay Anjay Stores v. Union of Intliir and others {2O17 Manu/WB/O846} also came to the t'onclrrsion that tobacco is not a food stuff. [lt:k inq r:pon the provisions of the FSS Act, and the olhcr cr).i( lrnerlts, the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Corrrt came to the conclusion that these art ic:lcs :rrr not food for the FSS Act to be pressed into st-rvicc. In fact, the learned single Judge of this Corrrt in t ht: batch of criminal petitions referred to h:rs :rlso comc to the very same conclusion. Tht'rcaftt'r, r<.lt,ing upon Sections 41 and 42 of the IrSS Act lrnd after considering the law on the sulrjr.ct. tlre learned single Judge came to the t'onclLrsir:ru that thc Inspector ol police or the subirrspcr:tor of polit:e do not have the authority to investigltr or to lile a charge sheet. He held ancl

¶756

¶757

Dr.CSl-, J CrlPNo.9O62 of 2O21 ond batch

¶758

rightty so that it is only the Food Safety^{Oflicer, who} is compctent to launch a^{prosecution for the offence} under thc F-SS Act. Despite this authoritative pronounccmcnt o[ this court; the status^quo continues."

¶759

Narcotic and^{psychotropicsubstanceswere kept out} of the ambit of the term^{"food" specifically.Itis clearly} indicated that they do not^{fall withinthe ambit of the term} "food". A food item means^{a substanceintended to be used} for human consumption either^{as aprimary food or} geneticalty modified or engineered^{food. Tobacco products} in r.r'hatever form thel' may^{be, does not thereforefall} n'ithin the ambit of the term^{'food". Therefore, invoking} Section 59(1) of the Food^{Safety and Standards Act, 2006} against the petitioners is^undesirable.

¶760

53.Point No.4:

¶761

Whether there exists ang iustiJia.ble^{grounds to} inuoke the pouter^{granted to this Court under} Section 482 Cr,P.C, and to^{qu.osh the} proceedings that are pending^{dgdinst the} petitioners as praged for.

¶762

Coming to the^pou'er of court^{to quash and exercise} of such a po\'er in cleserving^{cases, the Hon'blesupreme}

¶763

¶764

Dr. a.sl,. J Crll'No.got2 ol 2021 arkl batclt

¶765

court in the case betu,een State of Haryana Vs BhajanlaP

¶766

at paras i()B and 109 of the judgment observed as under'

¶767

"ln the barckdrop of the interpretation of the various relevarrt provisions of the Code under Chapter 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 irrherent powers under Section 482 of the Code u,hich we have extracted and reprocluced above, ',r,c give tl-re following categories of cases by u,a_r, of illustr:rtion wherein such power could be exercisecl eithcr to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or olherwise to secure tlle ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down anv precise, clearlv clefined and sufficiently channelised and inflexiblc guidelines or rigtd formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases '"vherein such lrorver should be exercised

¶768

Where the allegations made in thc F irst lnlornration Report or the complaint, even if thev are takt-n at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused

¶769

Where the allegations in the Irirst Informatittu Rcport and other materials, if any, accomp;rnving the Ir.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable oflertr:t, jttstifi,ing an investigation by police olficers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of

¶770

t t992 scc tcrr.; t26

¶771

¶772

Dr.CSL, J CrIPNo.9062^{of 2O21} ,uttd bot()t

¶773

a Magistrate within^{the purviewof Section155(2) of} the Code

¶774

Where the uncontroverted^{allegations made in the} FIR or complaint and^{the evidence collectedin} support of the same^{do not disclosethe commission} of any offence and^{make out a casc against the} accused

¶775

Where, the^{allegations in the F'I'R' donot} constitute a cognizable^{offencebut constitute only a} non-cognizable offence,^{no investigationis permitted} by a police officer^{without an order of a Magistrate} as contemplated^{underSection155(2)of thc Code} 5. Where the^{allegationsmade in thcFIR or} complaint are so^{absurd and inherentlyimprobable} on the basis of^{which no prudent person can ever} reach a^just conclusion^{that there issufficient} ground for proceeding^{against the accused}

¶776

Where there is^{an expresslegal bar engraftedin} any of the^{provisionsof the Code or the concerned} Act (under which^{a criminalproceeding is instituted)} to the institution^{andcontinuance ofthe} proceedings and/or^{wherethere is aspecific} provision in the Code^{or theconcerl'red Act'} providing efficacious^{redressfor the grievance of thc} aggrieved PartY

¶777

Where a criminal^{proceeding ismar-rifestly} attended with mala^{fide and/orwhere the} proceeding is maliciously^{instituted n'ith an ulterior} motive for wreaking^{vengeanceon thc accused and}

¶778

¶779

Dr.CSL, J (:rlPNo.9062 of 2021 and batch

¶780

with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge

¶781

1O9. We also give a notc of caution to the effcct that the po..ver 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 in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or gcnuineness or other$'ise ol the allegations made in the F.l. R. or the 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."

¶782

By r{1 the discussion that u,ent on in the preceding points, it is ciear that the prosecuting agencl. could not fit its case^--o any of the provisions invokecl 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 Corle, 1860 or the Food Safetv and Standards Act, 2006.

¶783

Th e provisions u,hich are enumerated in the precedinfl points are pressed into service routinely. No provision is shou,n u,l'rich prohibits transl;ort:rtion and sale of gutka, pan masala, chaini, etc. Thorrgh it is clearly

¶784

¶785

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

¶786

brought to the notice of^{this court that va-rious types of} diseases including cardiac arrest,^{cancer, etc., are being} caused due to consumption^{of tobacco and tobacco related} products and that in the interests^{of public health, there is} every requirement to ban^{the use of those products,} without any legislation to^{that effect, the court cannot} make the persons involved^{inthose activitiesliable'} Though COTP Act was^{legislatedso as to dea-l with and to} regulate the use of tobacco^{products,except regulatingthe} manner of packing and the^{label to be present over the} packages, sale to minors and^{near educational institutions,} the COTP Act does not^{envisagesthe completeban on use} of those products. It^{is not thc case of the prosecuting} agency in any of the^{cascs that the specified warning} (pictorial or otherwise) is^{not presentover the products that} were seized. Malignance in^{the activities of the petitioners} is not projected. Thus,^{having regard to the settled legal} position on exercise^{of jurisdictionand powerunder} Section 482^{Cr.P.C. and the specificfacts of this case' this} court is^{of theconsidered opinionthatexercise of}

¶787

¶788

Dr.CSL, .I CrlPNo.9O62 oI 2O2 I ttttd batclt

¶789

jurisdiction under Sectiorl 492 Cr.p.C. is essential to prevent abuse of process of law.

¶790

Therefore, the ultimate conclusion of this court is that unles,s and until a comprehensive legislation either regarding dre ban or restricted use of the tobacco products and reguiating their production, trade and supply is brought irrto force, though it is universally recognised that use of tobacco products is injurious to health, the persons dealing rr,ith those products cannot be booked under law. 57. Resultantly, all the Criminal petitions are a,llowed. Therebv, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the respectivc cases are quashed. The property and the vehicles, if an1,, seized shall be returned to the lawful claimant:; b,v the police concerned, following due procedure.

¶791

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous application s, if any, shall sr:rnci closeci.

¶792

SD/-K SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

¶793

Note: As per lhe orders ,)f lhe court in date d 22-09-2022Made in l.ANo.2 of 2022, the counsel lor the petali,)ners Sfl Praveen Kumar Veerjala in Crl-P.No.5953 of 2022 paid Rs 1,000, - vrde ruce,pr No 61 115 dated 12.10.2022 unlavour Of Telangana High Uourl Advocale s Assoc .rl'on Hyderabad For amending S.C.No is pleadangs and l.A. Amended as Jollows:-

¶794

Read the S.C Nurrber as '139'instead of ''39" which occurred ln column No.25 and prayers in Crl.P.No.t953 of 2022 and l.A-No-1 ot 2022. This afiended ordor subslitutes earlaer o.der, which was dispatched On 01.09.2022.

¶795

//TRUE COPY//

¶796

ONE FAIR COPY ]O I I'L IJ )N I]LF OR JUSIICE CHITLAKUR SUMAI AIHA (FOR HIS LORfSIiIPS KIND PERUSAL)

¶797

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT IIEGISTRAR Ab SECTION OFFICER

¶798

To.

¶799

Th,i Addil on ,l J!{jicral I,4agistrate of First Class at Sircilla

¶800

The Judicial^{First Class Magistrate, atHuzurnagar,Nagonda}

¶801

The Judicial First Class^{Magistrate,at Nalgonda}

¶802

The ll Additional^{Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalguda}

¶803

The Judicial^{First ClassMagistrate,atlvliryalguda}

¶804

The Special^{Judicial First Class Magistrate Prohibition and Exciseat} Nalgonda District

¶805

The XXV Metropolitan^{Magistrateat Rachakonda at lbrahimpatnam}

¶806

The Principal^{Judicial First Class Magistrateat Miryalguda}

¶807

The Junior Civil^{JudQewcum Judicial First Class Magisrate, at Adilabad}

¶808

10.The XIX Munsif Magistrate^{Kukatpally, Cyberabad}

¶809

1 1 . The Additional Principal^{Junior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy}

¶810

The Principal Junior Civil^{Judge, at Kalwakurthy}

¶811

13.The Judicial Chief Judge^{cum XXVIIAdditionalMunsif Magistrate,} Hyderabad

¶812

14.The lX Additional Chief^{lVlunsif lt4agistrate Hyderabad}

¶813

1 5. The Judicial First Class^{lvlagistrate,at lriledak}

¶814

1 6. The XVI I Add itional^{tVlelropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad}

¶815

17.The ll Additional Judicial^{First ClassMagistrate, Khammam}

¶816

18.The Junior Civil Judge cum^{Judicial First ClassMagistrate at Sirpur(T)} Komrambheem Asifabad^District

¶817

19.The Special Judicial^{First ClassMagistrateProhibition and Excise cumlll} Additional Junior Civil Judge. at^{Sangareddy District}

¶818

20.The Judicial First Class^{Magistrate,at Kodad,Suryapet}

¶819

ll ll

¶820

2'1 .The Vll^{Additional Chief Munsif Magistrate at Hyderabad}

¶821

The Principal^{SiessionsJudge, Medak at SangareddyDisrict}

¶822

23.The Judicial^{First Class Magistrate'Manugur' Bhadradi Kothaqudem}

¶823

24.The Judicial^{F rst Class Magistrate'Bellampalli}

¶824

25.The Xlll^{Munsif Magistrate, Kukatpally' Cyberabad}

¶825

26.The Vlll^{Additional Chief Munsif Magistrate'Hyderabad}

¶826

The xvl^{Addrtionaltvlunsif Magistrate, Cyberabad at RajendraNagar,} Cyberabad

¶827

2g.The^{Judicial First class Magistrate Narayankhed'sangareddy District}

¶828

29.The Station^{tlouseOfficer, Ellanthankunta Police Station' Raianna Siricilla}

¶829

30.The Station^{UouseOfficer Nereducherla Police Station Suryapet}

¶830

31 . The Station^{rlouseOfficer, NalgondaI Town Police StationNalgonda}

¶831

The Station^{House OfficerWadapally Police Station Nalgonda District}

¶832

33.The Station^{HouseOfficer Miryalgudall Town Police Station Nalgonda}

¶833

34.The Station^{HouseOfficer, Nalgonda ll Town Police Station Nalgonda}

¶834

35.The Station^{HouseOfficer, Rachakonda Police Station' Rachakonda'}

¶835

36.ThestatiorHouseofficerAdvidevulappllyPoliceStation,Nalgonda

¶836

The Statiorr^{HouseOfficer,-AdilabadI TownPoliceStation ' Adilabad}

¶837

Thr: Station^{HouseOfficer Chandrangar Police Station'RR District}

¶838

The Station^{HouseOfficer,Kadthal Police Station'Cyberabad}

¶839

40.The sration^{Houseofficer,Amangal Police station, AmangalRRDistrict}

¶840

41 . The Stalicn^{HouseOfficer, Maheswaram Police Station' Rachakonda'RR} District

¶841

42.The Stati<;n House officer,^{Chikkadapalli Police Station, Chikkadpally,} Hyderabad

¶842

The Stati,rn House Officer,^{Ramachandrapuram Police Station,} Ramachzrndrapuram Sangareddy^District

¶843

The Station House officer Ramayampet^{Police stationlriledakDistrict}

¶844

45.Thestat.onHouseOfficerMalkajgiriPolicestationMalkajgiriCyberabad

¶845

46.The Statron House Officer^{Khammam Rural Police station KhammamDistrict}

¶846

47 The Starion House Officer^{Kaghaznagar Town Police Station Komrambheem} Asifabacj District

¶847

48 The Sta:ion House Officer, Patancheru^{PoliceStation. Palancheru'} Sangitreddy District

¶848

49.The Statioll House officer,^{KodadTown PoliceStation Kodad, Nalgonda}

¶849

50.TheStationHouseOfficer,santhoshNagarPoliceStation'SanthoshNagar' Hyderabad

¶850

51.The Station^{HouseOfficer ZaheerabadRuralPolice Station} '^Sangareddy District

¶851

The Station House^{Officer, Munuguru Police Station'Itilunuguru}

¶852

53.The Station^{Houseofficer,BellampaltyI Town Police station , Bellampally'} Ramagudam ,

¶853

54.ThestationHouseOfficer,BalanagarPoliceStation'Cyberabad

¶854

55.TheStationHouseofficer,ChaderghatPoliceStation,Chaderghat, Hyderabad

¶855

56.The station^{Houseofficer,Raidurgam Police Station Radurgam RR District}

¶856

57.The Station^{HouseOfficer Manoor Police Station'Narayanakhed} SangareddY District

¶857

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

¶858

59.One CC to^{SRl. BALA MURALI Y Advocate[OPUC]}

¶859

One CC to^{SRl. PraveenKumarVeerjala Advocate [OPUC]}

¶860

One CC to^{SRl. Nanda KishoreYadav AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶861

One CC to^{SRl. Srinivas ReddyBalakisti Advocate[OPUC]}

¶862

63.One CC to^{SRl. R. PrasadAdvocateIOPUC]}

¶863

64.One CC to SRl.^{Gajanand Chakravarthy Advocate[OPUC]}

¶864

65.One CC to^{SRl. RaviChandra Shekhar Advocate[OPUC]}

¶865

One CC to^{SRl. Boggula Raju Advocate[OPUC]}

¶866

64.'11 L.R. Copies

¶867

66.fn" Unu-.-r'se"retary,^{Unionof lndia Ministryof Law} '^{Justrce and Company} Affairs , New DelhiNew DelhiDelhi

¶868

Affairs , New DelhiNew DelhiDelhi

¶869

,,^tfir. S..r"tury, Telangana^{AdvocatesAssociation'l-ibrary'IIigh ('oun} Buildings, HYderabad.

¶870

r,r.^'f rvo CD CoPies

¶871

r,s One Spare CoPY MMK gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 410712022

COMMON ORDER

!{
15 0[T 7$/Z
a

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, 5811, 5836, 5859, 5867, 5894, 5910, 5953, 5983, 5985, 6034, 6056, 6058 AND 6105 0F 2022

¶877

ALLOWING THE ALL CRIMINAL PETITIONS

¶878

)
$

Burra Lingaiah alias Satheesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Burra Lingaiah alias Satheesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Pola Laxmi Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana and another