Allowed

Mahesh Singh Raj Purohith v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Feb 2023CRLP/5767/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against the accused for alleged offences related to tobacco products, following a common order in Criminal Petition No.3731 of 2018 and batch which held such offences were not attracted.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.2046 of 2021 quashed.

Mahesh Singh Raj Purohith Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3251 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND^DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMIN AL PETITION NO: 5767 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mahesh Singh Raj Purohith, S/o Gopal Singh^{Raj, Aged} 38^yrs, Occ. Business, Rl/o H. No.23-^{138,4thstreet, Ramakrishna nagar,Malkajgiri,} Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶9

...PETITIONERYACCUSED No,1

¶10

AND

¶11

The State ofTelangana, Rep. by Public^{Prosecutor, High Courtat Hyderabad} through S.H.O., P.S.^{tvlalkajgiri,Hyderabad District.}

¶12

...RESPONDENT No.1

¶13

The Sub lnspector of Police,^{P.S- Malkajgiri, Rachakonda Commissionerate.}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/DEFATO-COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be} pleased to pleased to call for the records relating to CC No.2046i2021 dated 3007-2021 on the file of the Honble XVll Addl.^{Metropolitan Magistrate,Cyberabad} At Malkajgiri, against the Petitioner/Accused^{No.1and quashthe same.}

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Court maybe} pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC No.2046/2021 dated^30-07- 2021 on the file of the Honble XVll Addl. Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Cyberabad At} Ivlalkajgiri including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused^{No.'l till the disposal} of the Main Quash Petitionⁱⁿ the interest^{of the justice.}

¶18

Tiris Pe titron comtnll on for hearing, upon lrerusir <1 the N4emorandum of Grounds of Cr nt nal Petition and upon hearrng the itrgun)()t.s o. Sri p LAKSHMA REDDY ,Advo la,e 'or the Petitioner and of the pub ic prosr;cut.r for the State of Telangana on l:ehalf of the Respondent No.1 and of l:tri l\dvocate for the Responoent N,).

¶19

The Court ma( e the following: ORDER

¶20

Crl.Petition No.5767 of Z02z

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5757 OF 2022

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short^'Cr.P.C.), is filed by the petitioner/accused No.l to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2046 of 2021,^pending on the file of )0/II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri

¶26

The petitioner herein is the accused No.1 in the said crime. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 75, 273, 278 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short^"IPC') and Sections 7(1X2X3X5) and 20(2) of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003^(for short 'COTP Act).

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Perused the record.

¶28

Learned counsel for the^petitioner submits that this case is squarely covered by the Common^Order rendered by this Hon'ble \._

¶29

Crl.l,i, tion No.5767 of 2022

¶30

¶31

Court in C r rninal Petition No.3731 of 2018 a rd batch, dated 27.08.20t8

¶32

This llourl. had repeatedly quashed the pror:::dirrgs wherein tobacco pr(ducts were found on the ground thir', thr: provisions under Sectons 7,420,273 and 278 of IP_ and Sections 7(1X2X3X5) an,J 20(2) of COTP Act, are nor attra:rrrd. This Court vide Criminal Petition No.3731 of 2018 and batch, cl;tted 27.08.2018 had quashe< [ne proceedings against the accused p]rr;ons.

¶33

In thr :;aid circumstances, this Criminal Pet tron is allowed quashing thc proceedings in C.C.No.2046 of 202i., prencling on the file of XVII \dditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.

¶34

Since :he charge sheet is already filed, the t)etitioner is at libefi to fi e an appropriate application before tie concerned Magistrate f:r return of the seized property/v:hicle and the Magistrate st all consider the same in accordance witt- 6'a. However, it ls made cliar that if the seized stock of tobacco pll,lucts or other products are expired, the same shall be destro,Tr:d by taking permission fr ) l the concerned Magistrate.

¶35

Crl.Petrtion No.5767 of ZO22

¶36

¶37

B. The copy oF the common order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3731 of 2018 and batch, dated 27.08.201g, shatl form part of this order.

¶38

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous^petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition stand closed,

¶39

SD/_M.HD.^{SANULLAHA!!S4B!} ASSISTANT-REGISTRAR /rrRUE coPY// secfr#orrrcen

¶40

To,

¶41

llf"[t!ff^{1l3"fl J,", j'Bi3J:Xt'Y'i'-i,!i3;"9#€L*3[Y;']ii?l'} a HvderabadlOUTlijl'1,'bCi,i'sri^{i lut<sr'*u Reddv'Advocate IoPUC]}

¶42

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COIJRT

DATED:2ll10212023

ORDER

CRLP.No.{i767 of 2022

¶48

,i.
Sa'
<br>

¶49

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶50

¶51

THE HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶52

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3731 3634 3765 3766 s966 5967 5968 5969 s970 5971 5972 6754 6755 6758 6811 6816 6859 6954 6955 7081 8216 and 7851 of2O18

¶53

COMMON ORDER

¶54

These criminal petitions are liled under Sec[ion 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused in clifferent cases. The details of offences, crime numbers, accused number,

¶55

nature of offence are mentioned in the table^given below.

¶56

st. No	Crl.P-No	Crime Number	Accused Number	Offences allegedly committed	Nature offence of
1	3731of2Ol8	34of2018 of Manakondur PoliceStation	A.1	u/s328, 27Oand273 ofl.P.C-	Transportation ofPan Masala and^'Iobacco Products
2	3634 of 2018	26 of2Ol8 of Nakkapalli PoliceStation	A.2and A.3	u/s272, 273, 328 and 120-Bof I, P,C.	Transportation of Khaini Packets
3	3765 of 2018	5O9of2Ol7 ofNacharam PoliceStation	4.1	u/s272, 273,420, 188ofI.P.C. andSection 7(tl(21 (3) (5)and 26of Cigarettesand Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisemcnt and Rcgulation ofTrade and Commerce, Productlon, Supplyand Dlstribution) Act,2OO3(Ior short "COTP	Manufacturing Pan Masala.

¶57

Crlp 373 .l0li: and batch \4SN,I, J

¶58

)

¶59

				Act"
1	3766of2(1t	509ot2017 ofNacharan-r PoliceStation	4,2	u/s 272 273, 120 188olI.P.C andSectior: 7 (r)(2)(3 (5)and26o COTPAct 2003	Mauufacturing Pan Masala.
5	5966of2(1E	215ol2018 o[Nacharam PoliceStation	A.L	u/s 188 272,'2730 I,P.C.	Tra.rsportatior.r of Pan Masala
6r	5967ol2(\E	215of2018 ofNacharam PoliceStation	4.2	U/S )7) I,P.C 188 273o	Trairsportation o[PanMasala '
7	5963ol2(1[	215oI2018 ofNacharam PoliceStalion	4.3	uis rB8 272,'.t730 I. P,C,	lrairsportatiolr of Pan Masala
B	5969ol2(13	215ol2018 ofNacharam PoliceStation		U/S 272, I.P. C 273o	Tran sporlation oIPanMasala
()	5970 of 2(it	215of20 18 ofNacharam PoliceStation	4,5	U/S 272, I.P.C 188 273o	1'rarrsportalion c[Pan Masaia
10	5971 of?(1F:	372ol2O1a ofMedipally PoliceStation	A,I	u/s 188 272, '27a readuith3.1 ofI.P.(.	Marrufacturing andpackingof ['anMasala
1t	597 2of2(It	372ot20la ofMedipally PoliceStatior.r	A,2	u/s 188 c7c )7. readvith3.1 oll.P.Cl.	Marrufacturing andpackingof Par-rMasala
12	6751of2(1E	13of20i8of Golkonda PoliceStation	A.3	u/s 273 188olLl'.C andSectior 59(i) FSS Act	Saltof Masala loblcco Pro(lucts l'an and V4!^da
13	6755 of2(la	5O9ol201-7 ofNacharam PoliceStation	and 3 4	u/s 27'2 273, 420 188oII.P.C andSectior 7(i)(2)(31 (5) anct26ol COTPAct 2003	Marrufacturrng PanMasala.
14	6753of2Cl8	61 of 2017 of I(arirnuagar [)o]ice Statron		u/s 27o. 273 and328 of I.P.C.	Dealing Iob.rcco lfo(lucls rvith
t5	68llol2C18	235of2018 oI		u/s 27o. 273oll.P.C.	lransportatiolr lfl)anMasarla

¶60

Crlp_37-r I _2t) I lt and tratch MSM, J

¶61

¶62

		Patancheru PoliceStation			Section 20(2) readivith7 (2)ofCoTP Act,2O03	andTobacco
16	6816of2018	235ol20 18 of Patancheru PoliceStation	A.l A.2	and	u/s 27o, 273ofl.P.C. Section 20(2) readrvith7 (2)ofCoTP Act,2003	'l'ransportation ofPanMasala anclTobacco
t7	6859of2018	26of2Ol8 of Nakkapalli PoliceStation	A.I		U/S 273, 120 I.P.C )7') 324, Rol'	Transportation of Khaini Packets
I8	6954 ot2018	231 of2Ol8 of Vrsakhapatn am IV Torvn PoliceStation	4.1	to	u/s 324, 273, 188 readwith34 ofI.P.C.and u/ss9,s8 and 63o[ F'SSAct	Transportation of Khainr Packets
19	6955 of 2018	53 of 2018 of Nakkapalli PohceStation	4.1		UIS273of LP.C.and u/s1s6(3) ofCrPC	Transportation of Gutka Packets
20	708Iof2018	C.C.No.160 of 2016on the hleof Judicial Magistrateof FirstClassat lchapuram.	4.2 4.4	to	u/s 27o, 273ofl.P.C. U/S 54and 59ofFSSAct andSectlon 20 ofCOTP Act	Manufacturing of Tobacco Products.
2l	8216 of2Ol8	C.C.No.159 of 2016on the frleof Judicial Magistrateof FirstClassat Ichapuram.	A.2 A.3	and	u/s 27o, 273ofl.P.C. U/S 54and 59ofFSSAct andSection 20 ofCOTP Act	Transportation of Tobacco products.
22	7851of2018	84 of2O18of Modugula PoliceStation	A.l A'	and	UIS 273of I.P.C. and under Section22 readlvith5 ofCOTPAct	Transportation ofRajaKaini

¶63

Crlr I7.1 l()lf: i111sl [11.1, \ISN,I. J

¶64

¶65

As l lrc lrrers;tion involved in all the petjtions icl:ntical, I find that it ir, r:xpedient to dccidc all the petition; by common order.

¶66

Thc pit^(roncrs filed thesc criminal petir ions -r rlcr Section 482 of Or.F.(-1. on the grollnd that the l,rcz I pclice are incompetcnt tr; takc up investigertion and to file ch-rr ge^,;[reet for the offer.icc pr t:ris)rable under Seclions 54 and 59( t of ISS Act. Whereas thc :rllcgations madc in thc charge :;ll: tt and the statcnrcrlts rr t or-rled by the policc during invt:st lir ,tion un<1er Scction 161(: i) Cr.P.C. does noL disclose tl're r:o:tLrnission of offent--c lrunis r rbl,: undcr Sections 27O and 273 ct[ l.l>.(. or an\r other ollcnc:,-' ; re lerrecl in co]lrmn No.4 of tl-rr'^'l irlrlc relerred supra. Whcn tirc charge sheets and F.l.Rs do not <L s<:lose pnrna facie^{mrfieria L toconcludethat they committe I} th,:^above offences, lh(^(lourt can cxcrcisc power undcr Sr r;lion 482 of Cr.P.C. to qua slr tJ-re procecdings against the petitiorr:^'s.

¶67

Dtrring h,:aring, Sri P.Vikram and R.Siva i€ri S,\ /aroop, learned r:or-rnsel for the petitioners contended that tl-.r,ug-r khaini is a Tobacco pr ocluct, it would rlot fall within 1.he c t--finition of SccLron 3[) ol tl-c FSS Act.^'lherclbre, thc police ar( iitc()ml)etcnt to in,estiililL( inLo and file cl'rargc sheet, totallr. coltLrir..c ting the proccdur r: pr'.: ;r'^-iL,ccl unde l thc ltrovisions of li SS Ar' . U rcler the

¶68

Crlp 373 I 20lli and hatch IVlSM. J

¶69

-5-

¶70

FSS Act, Food Safety Officer alone^{is competentto clrawsamples} and investigate into. Therefore, the police lacks^inherent jurisdiction to investigate into the offences. On this ground alone, the proceedings against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) FSS Act are liable to be quashed. Similarly, registration of crimes against the^petitioners is also an illegaliry since local police are not competent to investigate into the offences.

¶71

Yet, another contention raised by the counsel for^thc petitioners is that none of the allegations made in the^clrargc sheet and statements recorded by the^{police duringinvestigation} so also in F.I.Rs. does not disclose the basic^{ingredientsto} constitute the offence^{punishable underSections mentioned in} the table above.

¶72

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners relied on the judgment} of High Court of Patna rendered in^{" Olrl.ko,r Agencga- The Food} SaJetg and Standards Authoritg^{of Indlavin support o[ their} contentions.

¶73

Per contra, the learned Public^{Prosecutorfor the State for} the States of Andhra Pradesh and^{Telanganacontended that} Tobacco is prohibited by^{the CentralGovernment by amending}

¶74

'^{AIR20 t6 Parl60}

¶75

('rltl -171 )i⁾ I^:j lUrd hatch \4SM. J

¶76

-6-

¶77

the provisionr cf^(IOTP Ac:t, rvhicl-r camc inlo frrrce orL 18.05.20O3, u,herelrr thc t.-rdc and con'rmerce, and producl.iolt, sulllly altd distrilrtrtion ol {ligaretLcs and other tobacco pr; odrrcts are prohil)itod. ll c sale ancl transportation ol Tober,:r;o products would <'onstit -,r tc -he ofk:r-rcc punishable undcr Scc r. r-rs 27O and 273 ol LP.C, sr also undcr Sections 54 and 59(1) FSS Act and prayt:r1 to rlismiss the criminal per itirtrx; liimilarly, manul'ar trrrin I c[ P:ut Masala is also contrirv('n1]on <rf p'ovisrons o[ F SS Act.

¶78

Lr::rr ne c I'u tlic Prost'cr-rtor for tbe St:rt< maiitl\ contcltdcd that Chcuring'l'obacco is ir Ibod product in vict, oI c:r'tprchensiv<: definilion o[ f r,rd undcr Scction 3 fi) of FSS Act sir.r:c it is u,idcr than tht' clcf rLition o[ lbocl uncler Food Adulterati:rn Act and plar:ed leJi:,rn r,l c,n the judgrnent of High Cour- of Bombay' rendercd in 'Dhariwq.l Industries Limited, Ghar.lq.usat Po,n Masalrr Prod tcts (I) Put. Ltd, Rajnand.ini Foods lru1t. Ltd, SDD Agencies Put Ltd.., Hira Enterprises, Rajat Indusl:ries Priuo.te Limited, .l}fSt Food Processors u. State of Mahat ushtra2" and anothcr^judg nrent of I-Iigtr Court of Mariras^-l:ndered in

¶79

" J.Anbazhagr tn u. The Union oJ Indiat"

¶80

' I (B( r\t) t0 t I , l(, ':OtS st ^\,S t^()nt.I)e !lirJ llJl

¶81

(lrlp_373 l_l0l E ,nd batch MSM. J

¶82

-1-

¶83

Considering rival contentions, perusing the matcrial available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:

¶84

1. Whether the respond.ent/ Sub-Inspector of Police, is competent to inaestigate into the olfence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) oJ FSS Act?

¶85

1. Whether the petitioners in all the petitions are found^{committing ang act with maliciousintention,} with knouledge and reo,sort to belieae that^such act tikelg to spread the infection of ang^disease dangerous to liJe? And whether the petitioners selling or offering or exposing Jor sale as food or drink, ang article uhich has been rendered or^hrrs become noxious or is in a state unfit for Jood or drink or rectson to belieue that the same ts^noxious as Jood or drink? If so, are theg liable to^be proceeded. for the olJence punishable^under Sections 27O and 273^IPC.?

¶86

POfNTNo.Tz

¶87

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

¶88

" Section 54 o/^FSS Act^{dealstoithpenaltg} for food containing extraneous^{mater -Ang} Person^{whether bg}

¶89

( r'lp -r7 lf) I ii urrrl irrrtcli \4SM..I

¶90

¶91

himsel.f ). b!^qng other person on his behalJ' m(ar.ttJ't:]ctures for^{sale orstoresor sells ordistributes orimpcrts.tng} article of .food for hurnan consumptioft cctli.qining extrdnq us ntatter, shqll be liqble to d penaltg wltt.ch nrag extend t ) onet l4l1l1 711psqs.

¶92

S:r:tion 59(i,f o/ .FSS Act deq.ls uith punishnu;nt .for unsafe 1ood, -^qng person who, whether bg hims ?l.l or bg ang otht.,. person on his behalf, manuJqctures Jo- .::ale or stores oi sells or distributes or i,m'ports ang articlz of Jc,od for^{hur ranconsrurrrptiorl.which is uns.tfe, ! hatllbe} punisha. rle,-

¶93

(L uhere such failure or contrq.uention tltes not result in injurg."

¶94

l'ht:r'c1() <:. t,oth thc offclit:es pertaining to slr (., s,orc and manrtfa('1Llrin { oI sLlch lirocl article, rvhich is pt olribitcrl :rnd unsalc li)r hurr;iLrr collsLlml)tion. The word '.[ood' is lclint:d uncler Section :l[i) of F':]S Act, s,l.rich reads thus:

¶95

"lood means ang substrrnce, whether prccessed, partialQ processed or unprocessed., which is inte lded J"or Ituman ,.otrsu''rption^q.trd. includes primqrg Jood t o the extend rlcfined in clause (ZK) geneticallg modi_q,ied or engineer zd Jood or food co'rtqini'1.g suclt ingre:otients, inJant jor\ packaged drinking water, rrlcoholit: ,7rirtk, chewing gum, and a^g substq.nce, including wq) <:r- used. into the food d.uring its ,'..q.nuJqcture, prepq.r!.1:i )n or treqtmer, t but d.oes not include ang animal lced, live .rnimq.ls ntless theg are prepared. or processed. for it,acing on the , tarket Jor hurnan consumption, p lq.nts ot.ior to haruestir g, cb-ugs and medicinq.l product.s, cos r etics, ndrcotic tr psgchotropic sulrstclnces..

¶96

Pr )uided tlaq.t the Centrql Government mqg ietclare, bg notifit ctl ion in the Olficiol Gqzette, any other cL1:i2le as

¶97

Crlp 373 I 2018 and lratch MSM, J

¶98

-9

¶99

food Jor^{the putposesof this Act hauing regard.sto its use,} nature, substa.'lce or qualitg;"

¶100

Though the word 'food' as defined under section 3fi) of FSS Act is inclusive, the chewing tobacco was not included in Section 3fi) of FSS Act. Manufacturing or transportation of Pan Masala is not an offence. Irt'Godawat Pan Masola Products I.P. Ltd. and another a/s. union of Indid'the Apex Court analyzed the definition of 'food' under Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, 1955 as under:

¶101

" There is merit in the contentions oJ the appellants. Rule 3 oJ the Maharashtra Preuention oJ Food Adulteration Rules, 7962 and the corresponding ntle in the Goa, Danno,n and Diu Preuention oJ Food Adulterdtion Rules, 7982 stggest that the^pouer gfiEn to the Food. (Health) Authoritg ls ontg d P"o tcm power to deal uith an emergent sldtation, such as outbreak oJ ang lnJectious d.isease, uhlch mag^{be due} to ang article of food. Certaintg,^{s:.tchpoueruould,} lnclude the power to ban^nJor the tlne being"^{the sale} o;f xtch injurious drtlcles^oJ Jood. Hence,^there is^a corT esponding provision tn Secfioa 7(io) oJ the Act.^In other uords, uhen a contingencg enalsaged^{bg Rule} 3, or one simllar thereto,^{arises and,} it^becomes necessdry for FHA to tdke immedlate^stePs,FHAis empowered to prohibit^*for the tlme being"^the injurious article concerned and, to^{ta'ke dng} dppropriate step^uin the interest^{of public health".}

¶102

'^{(2004)7 scc68}

¶103

( r'l 1 -l() l:l ajl(l l)atch ,1 S N,1. J

¶104

l0 -

¶105

Cn the collocation o.f the statutory provisions, it is nor .possible to accept the states' contentio.t tltat Section 7(it) is an independent source of poL)er or that the 7964 arnendment to Section 7(iu) \tld t:he effect of e.rnpouering FHA to prohibit the srrl,- of a'.ng article "in the interest of public health" ?,his conclusion is crlso supported bg its lelt is lative history.

¶106

Il wos improper that despite thl 1964 amend.t tent in Section 7(ia), the ntles were ,tot corresp rndinglg updated- Houteuer, going stri <:tlg bg the Sta1l Rules, which dctucttlg deterrnine th"- extent oJ the 1: ower o;f FHA, the argurnent o.f the States that the sail amendment uas intended to giue e csrte blanche to FHA cannot be accepted, The pow<t- o.f lhe State F.IA, uhich is discernible under S<rction 214(2,Vq) read uith the Statc Rules, operates only .for a tenpor.trlt period during which ctrt elu;rg<;nt situatio n exists uthich need.s to be cor.r:rolkzd. Section 7(iu) does not clothe FHA uith the pouer to issue cr ban ord.er for c, longer period.

¶107

E rcn assurning that gutka and tobac:co producl s are injuries to hedlth, the power tl' their prohibit ion is onlg aested uith the Oc,l..J-ol Gouernr rent and not uith the Stqte f^ood^rflealth) Authort:ies.

¶108

A.1ain, applging the principles of hann<tttious constnt:tion, it is not possible to hold that !;ection 7(iu) is <'.rt independent source of power. The p,ouer of thc Strr:e under Section 7(iu) oj the Act is strrtrrtoi:y; absolut,, to the cxtettt provided tlrcreirt. ancl ,i mited to thc e..tcrtt indicsted bg Section 23(7-4) of the .4ct "

¶109

Crlp .i7-il 20lti arrd batch MSM. J - ll-

¶110

The definition of the word pod'under Section 3[) of FSS Act is identical to the definition of the word 'food' wder Section 2(v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, 1955 made therein, chewing tobacco is not included in the definition of 'food' under Section 3(y) of FSS Act, but it is a prohibited product under the COTP Act, 20O3.

¶111

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

¶112

ln^" M/s.Pepsico India Holdings (hrt) Ltd., and. Another

¶113

u. State of U,P.s" the Allahabad High Court had an occasion to deal with similar question, extracted the definition of the word 'food' under Section 3[) of FSS Act, so also the word 'food additiue'as defined under Section 3(k) of FSS Act, it^means any substance not normally consumed^{as a food by itself or used as a} typical ingredient of the food, whether or not it^{has nutritive} value, the intentional addition ol which to food for a^{technological} (inctuding organoleptic) purposc in the manufacture,^processing,

¶114

5 20 I t(2) crimes 250

¶115

(rl r lll l{)lll irn(l l)irtcll i\ISM, J

¶116

ll -

¶117

pre prir':rllolr, r( atment, [):lcking, packaging, t]-?1nsF(,rt o- bcilrling of sr.l('lr loorl r-rrsr-rlts, or lnal bc reasonarbl-r, cxpe ll,r(l t() re sult (dirc<:th' or rnrlirectlv), in it or its bv producr: tcconting a compcLonl of rtr ,rthcru,isc itffecting the chzrlactcrir;lics of such foocl but docs ncL includc "con lrtminar-rts" or substarr,: es addcd to lood for rnerin eLrning or improving nutritionill r 1u:rlit r::,. The rcfore , cheu'irrg tobzu c:o is noL covcrcd by food additivr.

¶118

Scr:tior-r^zl I of FSS Act dcals rvtLh por.l,crs o1 s;e iLrc-h. sr:izurc, it'rvestig;rtiorr, prosecution anc[ proccclurc iltr'rr-'o :rrrrl it is :1ppi ol)r iirlc 1( :xt^-act thc s:rtnc:

¶119

prosecul iora and procedure thereof- (7) N<rtwith;t'.tndi ng qn/thitl! contq.ined. in sub-section (2) oJ Section !i7, r.he Food S. fetg Officer mag seqrch dng place, sc.rze a.ag article o'.food or^qdulterant, if there is^q. reesonq.l'le d.ottbt about tl em lreing involved in commission of ang offerce relating to lood ond shall thereaJter inlorm the d.esionql:ed officer o-' Lhe^(rctio'r.s tdken bg hi,7r in writing:

¶120

Pt ot'id.ed. thqt no search shall be deeme c'. to be irregul<7.t bg reason onlg of the fact thqt witnesser .lbr lhe seclrch <re not inhq.bitants of the locdlitg in wtich lhe place ser rched is situqted-

¶121

(2 Sdve (rs in this Act otheruise expresslg 1|<tvided., provisior s o"f the Code oJ Crirnin(rl Procedurz 7973 relq.ting 1o search, seizure, summorr, investigdtiott q.nd prosecut'orr, shall applg, as./cr as mag be, to q I zction taken bg llle .Food Safetg Olficer under this Act."

¶122

Crtp_373 I 2018 and batch MSM- J

¶123

¶124

Accordir-rg to Section 42 of FSS Act, the Food Safety oflicer shall be responsible for inspection of food business, drawing samples and sending them to Food Analyst for analysis; the Food Analyst after receiving the sample from the Food Safety Officer shall analyse the sample and send the analysis report mentioning method of sampling and analysis within fourteen days to designated officer u,ith a copy to Commissioner of Food Safety; the Designated Officer, after scrutiny of the report of the Food Analyst, shall decide as to rvhether the contravention is punishable r,,r,ith imprisonmen[ or fine only and in the case of contravention punishable with imprisonment, he shall send his recommendations within fourteen days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution. The commissioner of Food Safety shall, if he so deems ht decide, within the^period prescribed by the Central Government, as per the^gravity of offence, whether the matter^{be referred} to^{a court of ordinary} jurisdiction in case of offences punishable with imprisonment for a term up to three years or a^{special court in caseof offences} punishable with imprisonment for a term^{exceedingthree years} where such special court is^{establishedand in case no special} court is established, such cases shall^{be tried by a courtof} ordinary^{jurisdiction;} The^{Commissioner of F ood Safety shall}

¶125

C'rlp 373L 0ll lntl batch MSN4. ]

¶126

14 -

¶127

conlmunic:ttc t rs dccision Lo the Designatr:d oflr::r :rnd the concerned Fc r:,<l Safety Officer u,ho shall lituncL, prosecution beforc c,r-tr ts ,rf ordir-rary jurisdiction or Special^(l(iurt, as the casc may be, and sucl-r communication shall also lr: sent to the purchascr if I r: strmplc rvas taken undcr Scction 4C c,I the Act.

¶128

Tl-rus, S:ctic,n 42 of LF,e FSS Act laid dorvn prccedrrre to be Ibllorved by 1l r: I.-ood Safcty Officer appointed und:r th s Act to inr.cstigate an 1 llc cornplainL before thc compctcnt (:()r l'11;.

¶129

[:r r.icir' .ll sPecific proce clure prescribed Ln thr I,SS Act, the Food Saletl' C ilcer alone is competent to launch thc trosecutiorr aftcr cornplia rc c of the procedure contemplal cd rrr-rc cr sub sections (2) to (1) of Scction 42 ot FSS Act.

¶130

ln " Om,car Agencg u. The Food Safetg anC' Str:,ndards Authoritg oJ Indi&" thc Drvision Bench of High Cc,r Lrt of Patna l'relcl thal. chcvrng tobacco is not a food proclu,.t rL.s rle ,-jncd undcr Section !i (i) ol JrSS Act.

¶131

Thc I-Ii1;h Oourt of Madras in " J.Anbo.zha17 an u. The Union of Ind. ct' (^. eferred supra) and the High Court of Bombay n'r " Dhariwq.' Industries Limited, Ghodanuat E\tn Masala Products (I) .Put. Ltd., Rajnandini Foods Pul. Ltd, SDD Agencies Put,L,td.., Hira Enterprises, Rajat Industr.ies Priuate

¶132

"^{Ilt l0la,I,lr11.,11}

¶133

Clrlp 37.)l 2018 and batch MSM, J

¶134

l5 -

¶135

Limited, MSS Food Processors a. State o.f Mdhdrdshtrd' (referred above) held that chewing Tobacco are food products within the definition of food as defined under Section 3 fi) of FSS Act and the police are competen t to investigate in to the offence along with the offence punishable under I.P.C.

¶136

In " Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao u. State oJ

¶137

Maharashtrat" an identical issue came up for consideration, r.r,herein the Division Bench of Bombay High Court took diflerent view and held that the Food Salety Officer alone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet against the persons who committed the oflence under the provisions of FSS Act.

¶138

Therefore, later^judgment in " Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao a. State oJ Mahordshtrc" (referred above) has to be relied upon for the purpose of deciding the present cases. Since these^trvo judgments are rendered by the coordinate bench of same High Court and the law laid down tn Dhariual Industries Limited's case (referred above) was adverted^{to and considered,} but^came to a different conclusion. Moreover,^{the judgment of High Court} of Madras rn " JAnbazhdgan a. The^{Union of Indid' (referred} supra) is based on the^judgment of^{High Courtof Bombayin} Dhariwal Industries Limited's ccse^{(referred above).}

¶139

7 2016 t.aw Suir (Bom) 234

¶140

('rl r .r 7.i .l() I f l an(l batch \4SM. J

¶141

16 -

¶142

In^"Jos ti u. St<zte of Keralas" Kerala Iligtr Cc r Lrt rclci that tobacco :rnd tcbercr:o products are not lood as tl: incd under Section .l[j) of I S:i Act as it is not a food pror lur:t rr; spr:cificd in regulalic,n ).i,4 of 1-he regularions and thc tobacco :rnri tobacco produc:ts rrre o bt' manufactured in zrccor<larL,:r' r',ith the provisiorrs ol' []rlJ'P Act and Rulcs therein. I.'ood [i,Liety Ofhcer has no riqhI t ) al{c action against tobacco and tob rr :o rroducts b' ,irtUC ol^(i., ).r,lt'rrrncut order.

¶143

ln ;rrrol r,:r jrrrlgnrent in Jagauila-s Tobacco^'I'raa'ers LLP rep. bg its P.,)'tner v. The Designated Ofi.cer, F<n,C SaJetg & Dt-ugs Contrc I Dept. (W.P.No.2 I of 2Ol7) ttrc Maclrrrs IIirlh Court advertccl Lo [:e various pror,isions of IISS A< I ar cl Food AdultcraLiorr ,:t ,tnd cor-rcludcd that r.l'hen thc F(tlli()t1ct' was manulhc-turitr,g,rf [ine qr-talitv of tobacco prior witlrt,rt ,,iolating LIte pLovrsrorr: ,rl l:ru,, the pr-occedings a!{airrst h rlr ar e to be quasheci. The Maclrirs lligh Cor-rrt relied on its . r lrj11116n1 it Manufacture;1 M/s.Tejram Dharam Pau\ Maurmand| Bhatind.a Di::trict Punjab qnd qnother u. The ltr.>od Safetg Inspector, A nbasamudram (Crl.O.P.(MD) No.55Ori of 2015 dccided on^'2i .'-4.2O15) s'hercin it u,as held that rrl>acco sh:rll not be rrsc<l a; inrlrr:<lients in anv food products, as it (tocs not

¶144

'lot] t,l^t

¶145

Crlp 373I 2018 and batsh MSM, J

¶146

-17-

¶147

come \rrithin the^purvrerv of the [ood^product, the FSS Act^{has no} application and that the manufacturer of^gutka and^{pan masala} cannot be proceecied under the FSS Act as^{Tobaccocovered} under the COTP Act.

¶148

Simitarly in M/s.Vaipugaigilai Urpathigalarg al^Matrum Virpanaigalargal Nala Sdngam u. The Commissioner^{oJ Food} Satetg (W.P.(MD) No. 10319 ot 2Ol7l an^{identicalquestion} whether chewing tobacco manufactures comes^withinthe purvierv of FSS Act and the Food Safety Officer is^competentto investigate and to file charge sheet. It^{was l-reld thaL chcwing} tobacco is covered by COTP^{Act and Food SafetyOfficer is not an} authority to interfere with the business^{of the petitioner.}

¶149

One of the contentions raised by the^{learned Public} Prosecutor is that when the^{petitioner/ accusedallegedly} committed the offences^{both underFSSAct and I.P.C., police can} investigate into the offences^{punishable under the provisionsof} I.P.C. and FSS Act.

¶150

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

¶151

Cr')p - 7i i lt)l i unti brtelr \1S\1. .l

¶152

ts -

¶153

''S r n,,rr ij-r (-l)of ( r.I'.( .

¶154

Wlrele ir :i1se relate s to t\'o or ntot c off(inccs oI ivl-rich al1 leas t onc is cogniz:Lblc. he <:asc sltall llc (iccnred to bc a cogri; abl.t casc, notu'iflrstaDcl r^(: ttrat tl-rc othet-olferrccs are nou cogrrizable '

¶155

But tlt I F:iS Act is :r diffcrent cnac tmen - po\,er was col.lfcrre.l oul/ ln Food Safetr 6lliccr (o inyc:;tigaLt: intc offencc. 'l-l-rough ltolic: atc comp(.tcnl lr) rnvlsjtigittr into :hc olTclrces l)unisl):rl)lc^{rl rarcrLP.C.,thcv calrltotinvestigrltc ir.rtcr} th: offcl'rcc l)unishable^{u ]:ler the provisiolls} ol^F-SS Act irr vicrr. r,f tlte po',vcr confcrrcd or F-ood Sal'e ty (){'liccr and the I lr.cc([Lu-e lor investigatior-r s; totallr, distir-rct h-om thc inve sLigatilr- pl escribcd lor tht- ol'lenc: ounishablc unclt:r I.P.C. Whcn the _r:lict, dicl not conduct invr:s tiqarion as spccific(l ir-r thc pro,,,isions lf .'SS Act, tl're investigzr iln done b1' tl're police is vit,ated ,l ,re to noncompliancc o rnandaton, proccclure prescrib,-:d ur rl:r llSS Act. 'lhcrcforr:, ot-i l,'ris ground the contcntion of thr: Pubt(] prcsccutor cannol bc upl c)d.

¶156

In vicrr,, c.f the la\4, dcclurcd by variorrs Cctl-ts relerrcd srtyrr-a. tlrt: o tI ce cannot tal<r' t.ogr-rizancc r[ th: of[,::nce, to rrlvcsLrga[e iLtt t tnd to fi]e clt:rrsc sltect aqains. Lhc P: iti,,n('l-s lut

¶157

Crlp-3731 20 tE and hirtch MSM. J

¶158

t9 -

¶159

the offence punishable under Sections 54 ancl 59(1) of FSS Act, as they were not empowered under the^{FSS Act} to^{launch the} prosecution, but only Food Safety Officer appointed by the Government alone is competent to launch^{prosecutionfor those} two offences. This vierv is supported by the^Judgment of^the Allahabad Higl.r Court in M/s.Pepsico India^{Holdings(Pvtl Ltd.} case referrecl supra and the Judgmen[ of^{Patna High Court in} " Dharmendra Kumor^{(r) Raja u. The State oJ Bihane".}

¶160

The Inspector of Police, Ichapuram^{and Sub-lnspector of} Police, Kanchili, u,ithout any authority^{launched Lheprosecution} against the pctitioners in C.C.Nos.159 and^{160 of 2016 on the} file of .Judicial Magistrate of First Class,^{Ichapuram,therefore,} the proceedings under Sections 54 read with^{59 of FSSActare} Iiable to be quashed on the sole^{ground. The point is answcred} accordingly.

¶161

POINTNo.2:

¶162

The other contention of the counsel for^{the petitioners is} that the allegations made in the^{complaint/charge sheet, if} accepted on its face^{va1ue,would not constituteany offence} punishable under Sections 27O and^{273 of l.P.C.Theoffence} uncler Section 270 is^{punishablewith imprisonmentof either}

¶163

'crl.w.P.No.l^{I9 ol2o l6}

¶164

( r i) rl I li)i i anr-l blrtelr I,1 S NI, .I

¶165

l0 -

¶166

dcscriptron lc r r l('rnt u.hich tn:rt' cxte nd [o L\ o '(]i1t s; or u'rtlt f-inct or u'iLh bollL unrl thc oll'enct: under Scc iorr . , 3 I.P.C. is punishablc u it r irnprisonment of either desL:ri1;ti;n [or rl tcrrn u'l'ricl-r ma1' c > tr nrl to six montl.rs, or u'ith finc rvhrc lr n'ra r,- extcnd to one thousa nrl rupccs or u,ith botl-r.

¶167

Thc ol i:rrc,.l punishablc under Sectror) t','/ ) .P.C. is cognrzable s'l c rciLs the offeltt--t-. punishablc urrdcr ll--:tion 273 is non cogniz:rb r:. IJr.rt ivhen thc policc rcceivcc inlir; rr ation abont tlrc r:ornmissi r r ol ltoth cogrIiztrl;lc anrl non-r oeltrTai )le offcnccs, tl.rc polrcc can irrvcs(igate into l;otlt thc oft'cnccs in vi:.r'ol Sccliotr 155 (.1) Cr.P. l.^'['hcre[orc, ir-rr.cstiqatiou cbrc l;r tl c Inspcctor and Sub-lnsJ cr tor of Policc in both the Calcnclrr- lers,es is in accor<[ancc r,;th Scctiorr 155(4) Cr.P.C. :rncL ]t :r-clbre tl-rc lnspector of I'e ic,' or Sub-lnspct:tor of Polic| are (.(,mf)cteltt to it-tvt-'s liga Le irr r., t1- c olTencc il-trrisl'rable un(lcl S{)cIi(),ts 270 il-rd 2731.P.(".

¶168

Section 1).'7O of L P.C. deals u'ith commrttir.rg ;tir-r. 1ct wr tll thc knorvledg,: or rcason to l;clieve that sur:h act is til<cly to sprcad aLtf intct tiorr or any dise:rst:, dange rous to [iIc, but thc act donc b1- thc tclitioncrs is onl-t' transportati(,n rif :,rn Mas:rla, I(hairri anci c]r:,,r ing tobacco tn ciilli'rent vehiclcs.

¶169

Cllp_373 I _201 ll arrd batch MSM. J

¶170

¶171

Therefore, transportation oI Pan Masala, khaini and cheu,ing tobacco rvould not spread infection or any^disease dangerous to life. To constitute an offence^{punishableunder} Section 27O l.P.C., the petitione r must^{have done an act which} spreads infection of any diseasc dangerous to^{human life. The} charge sheet and the statements recorded by^{the police during} investigation does not disclose that the said^{transportation of} khaini or che',r,ing tobacco would spread^{infection or any disease} dangerous to any human life.

¶172

Accolding to the Wcst's lcgal thesaurus/ dictionary,^the word 'infect' means contaminate, corrupt,^{pollute, imbue,} impress, animatc. The u,ord 'disease'^{means deviationfromthe} healthy or normal condition^{of any of the functionsor tissues of} the body (occupational disease),^{sickness,infirmity,disorder,} illness, affliction, weakness,^{distemper, ill health, ailment,defect,} handicap, disability, breakdown,^{malady,abnormality,plague,} complaint derangement, attack,^{discomfort, delicate constitution,} delicate condition, debility,^{suffering,malaise, nausea,pathologr,} frailty, attack, cancer, cholera,^{virus, "bug", syndrome.}

¶173

According to Section 33 of^{I.P.C.,the word 'act'denotes as} well a scries o[ acts as a^{single act; the} ',r'ord^{'omission' denotes} as u,ell a serioLrs of^{omissions as a singieomission. Thus, it}

¶174

('r l.r ll \ I lr)l\ arrLl batch \IS \1. J

¶175

ll -

¶176

mcans, :rn'l.l rrilg dor-re b1, ant, of tl-rc pcrsons^{'LirI;lxtrtation} of Khaini, Pan VIrls:1la or cheu.irrg tobacco ilself r,,'c, u < rtoL spread anf inl'ection ol disease .utd ll thc khaini is clrervec, I nril\ celuse danger 1o hralLh of anv tnclividurll, but tratrspor irriort rvill not spread irnv irr.i:ction or discasc rlirnge rous to hr:al r ') lrcrcfore, tl're allegatro rs lnade in thc <:ornplaint i.e trarrs rrtrlalion of chet,r,ing toba:co^jr Khait-ri or P.rn Masala also (l(, rr.,t Lrrnstitute an offcncc lrunishaLrle Luldcr Section 27O of l.]>.C.

¶177

Thc otltl oflcnce alk:gr:cllr t:olnn'riLtccl l,r'rht l, tiri,)ncrs is putrisl'tal>lc r:l)d,lr Scctior.r '273 l.tr.C- rvl-rjclt rlcrtls u.ith punishnrclt ltr srrle, offcrs or (]xposcs {br sak. forirl ;^- urr. zrrtrcle u'hicl-r has b:e rt rcnderecl or lrirs bccome :roxir.i rs;. 'l hc u'ord 'noxious' is n rt d,:fincd rn I.P.C. As pcr thc rlicriorr r-r' rtrcaning, noxious mcrrr s, I-re.rmful, cleleterrolrs, injurious, pois-r (,r.li.

¶178

Thcrc:lb^-r:, 1he sale or olli:r's or expos(.rs Iir- .;irl: of Pan Masaia chcw r tr1 l.obacco or khaini are thc lrroi-rii_ itr:ri l)roducLs under the C(^r'lP Act, 2O03. 'Transportqtion' o1' sr Lr_.lt noxious food is not in, :htdr-.d in thc offent:c punishable und( r Sc(]tion 273 I.P.C., onl1, ft r,r' acts urerc includcd i.c., sale of nci.j rus lood or drink is an o[] er rc<r.

¶179

Thus th:' rllegations t-narlc in thc ch:rrge sher.r c rtrpk-cl n,ith thc slatcmcnt j Lccorded b.r. Ll-rc policc cluring rtYc.s;lrt t1i( lr Lutclcr

¶180

CLlp_3 7i l_20 I 8 and batch MSM. J

¶181

.1-

¶182

Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C do not disclosc^ingredienls to^constitlrtc an oIfence punishable under Section 273^{I.P.C. However, itis} consistent view of the prosecution from the beginning^{that these} petitioners were lound transporting Pan Masala, khaini and chewing tobacco in the different vehicles referred supra,^but, transportation of noxious food^{viz., khaini} and^{chewing tobacco is} not included in the offence^punishable under Section^{273 l.P.C.} Manufacturing Pan Masala is not^included in^{Section 273 of} I.P.C., hence, manufacturing o[ Pan Masala is not an^offence since it is not a noxious food.

¶183

Therefore, I find no prima facie material against^the petitioners to proceed against them for the offence^punishable under Section 273 I.P.C. accepting^{the allegatioi-rsmade in the} charge sheets and the statements^{recorcled by the police under} Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and^{F.l.Rs. issued againstthe petitioners.}

¶184

The scope of Section 482 of^{Cr.P.C was time and again} discussed in catena of^{perspective pronouncementsof the Apex} Court and in a Constitutional^{Bench judgment of the Apex Court} in " State of Haryana^u. Bhajan^{trd o," seven guidelineswere} laid down and they are^{as under:}

¶185

r" 1992 Supp. ( l) sCC :115

¶186

(rl) i7-l t l0l i urtrl L;irtclt \ ts ill . .r

¶187

{

¶188

(a) lllhere the allegcttions mqde in the )r:irst InJb rntation Report or the complainL euen iJ :lleg arc lqken dt their fo.ce ualue and qccepted. in their enti'etg do not primq. fqcie constitute ung of,rce or n^qke out a co/se qgqinst the^qccused:

¶189

(b) \therc the allegqtio^s in the First lnformtttioa Rep'rrl^q.nd other mqteriqls, if ang, accompcr|t1ing the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable olJ,?1 )e, just fging o.n investigqtion bg police ofli.:, rs und tr Section 156(1) of the Code except und.t q4 orde r o-f^q Mdgistrdte within th/.' put |i 2ro oJ S'tction 755(2) of the Code;

¶190

(c) $'!tere the uncontroverted allegqtions mattc in the .rIR or 'complq.i'lt qnd the euidence collectid in supl ort of the same do ^ot disclos,r the com nissiorr of ang olfence and moke out a cuse ageiast the accusedl (d) Vhere the allegq.tions in the FIR do lot conslitute a cognizable offence but constitute .t1lg d nrn-cognizqble olfence, no investigatiott is pern itted bg a police ofJicer without dn orcler oJt a Magt strate (Is contemplqted. under Se<li,ttr 155( 2) of the Code;

¶191

@)^{$ rhere theqllegqtions} mq.d.e in ttrc FII: )r coml,lqint^qre so qbsurd. qnd inheret :,lg inpr >bable on the bq.sis o.f which no pru,7e tt persl tn cqn euer req.ch q just con.clusior- thqt t,te re is sr.Tfficient ground. for proceeding against e accu ie(7;

¶192

U)^{Wtrcre thereis an express} legql bar engrdfte(.' n qng ''J the prouisions of the Code or the conce,.tL,i-d

¶193

('rlp 3731_2{)18 and batch MSM..I

¶194

-25-

¶195

Act (under uthich^q critnirtrr.l proceeding is lnstituted.) to the institution^q.nd co'ltinu(Ince of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concer^ed Act, providing efficacious redress Jor the grieadnce of the o.ggrieued pqrtA;

¶196

(9, where a. criminal proceeding is mqnikstlg dttended uith rnalafide and/or tuhere the proceeding is maliciouslg instituted with an ulterior motiue for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite hirll due to priuate and. personal gntdge. In the instant cdse, the^qllegations made in the complaint, do clearlg constitute a cognizable offence^{justiJication} and this c@se does ,aot call Jor the exercise oJ extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quo.sh the F.I-R. itself.

¶197

In view of the guidelines laid dor,r,n by the Apex Court in " Strrte of Haryana a. Bhojon Lat'^(referred supra), the^police are incompetent to take cognizance of Lhe offences^punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) of FSS Act, investigating into^the offence along with the other offences under the^provisionsof I.P.C. and filing charge sheet is a^grave illegality,^{as the Food} Safety Officer alone is competent^{to investigate and to file charge} sheet following the Rules laid dou,n^{underSections4 1 and 42 o[} FSS Act ancl the Judgments of the^{Allahabad High Court and} Patna High Court are clear that^{the police are not competent to} investigate and to file charge sheel.

¶198

Thcr<:1o:,:, i r vicu, of the la\r declarccl in varlc rrr;^jL <lgntents rcfcrrcd supt a, chcrving tobacco and kl-rain arc^,Li)t thc foocl \rithin thc^, [,311p i116r, of Section 3[i) ol f SS 1,, 1 .rr]d Lhe manu[a<:tt.u-r', s;rrle or cxposing for sale of tob:rr co et,: is loverncd by lhe provisi rr s rf COTP Act, but not b1' FSS Act ;rr r sc iLlso thc provisions ol ['t.).

¶199

As rliscr:ssed in the earlier paragraph.i, '.hc rlspondcnts 211'6 inqlrnrpc:t3rLt to investigatc the o[[enc:c pLlnijlrill)](' Lurder Scctiotrs ii't rL.d 59(1) of FSS Act ancl tlrc :rlleg rt on; iu tl'rr: char-gc shcct :cuyrlcd nith thc st.ltcments do,:s r-roL ,lisr'lrtse thc commission o'the offcnce punish.rblc undcr Si:ctior, i, 7ll ol' l.P.C. sit-rce trrinspr ltation of noxious food is not irlr: r <k,,1 uuclcrSection 273 cl l.P.C. The act done b-y tl'rc p:trlrorrcrs i.c. transporlatiot of <haini and cher.ving tobacco thou.lh dr r-rgerous Lo human lifr: i. v,ould not sprcacl or infect or caus j rrtr clisetrsc on account of tran spoltation and if thosc proclucl.s ir':. r:r rrsumcd by human l>c:rrp1, it u,ould certainly cause darna5lc rt tht. heallhThereforr:, tril rsportation of kl-rair-ri or cheu,ing tobacr o is not by itself is not zr;r tffence under Sr:ction 27O of 1.P.C. rrtcl it rvould Iall rvirl-rin Sec,ion 27O of l.P.C.

¶200

Iu C]rirr i:al Pclition Nos.3765. 3766 t rrd 6l 'ir-, ol 2018 (sl.Nos.3. 4 rr:cl I l',) police r cgistercd cirs' ibr tlrt' offcLrcc

¶201

CLlp 373 I l0l tl and batch MSM. J

¶202

)7-

¶203

punishable under Section 7 (ll (2\ (3) (5) and Scction 26 of COTP Act, wherein the accused wcre lound manulacturing Pan Masala. But Pan Masala is not a Tobacco product to fall within the purview of COTP Act. Therefore, the provisions of COTP Act have no application, theretry registration of crime for violation of Sections 7 (ll (21 (3) (5) and Section 26 of COTP Act is an illegality.

¶204

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

¶205

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

¶206

Section 7 (3) of COTP Act says that no^person shall import cigarettes or any other Tobacco^products for distribution or supply for a valuable consideration or for sale in India unless every package of cigarettes, or any other Tobacco^products so imported by him bears thereon, or on its label, the^specified warning. Since the petiLioners are transporting Tobacco^products

¶207

('r lr 'irl)i illt(l l)irtcii ,1S i\ 1. .r

¶208

l3 -

¶209

uitlxrut ai1' lll,cl, it rvould iall within thc proyisLor:; of iiet:tiotr 7 (3) o1' CCTTP ,\ :r

¶210

In Crirr rra. Petition Nos.7081, 82 1(-r ,rnd^''!,rl of 2018 (s1.Nos.20, .2 i and 22), policc registercd a cas( egainst Lhe pe titioners b the oflcnce punishable under Sectior t , 20 ttncl 22 ol C()TP Act. Siincre the petitioners are found manL lrrctLrring zurd tran sllortaLi()r L of Tobacco products without an1, Ia lr I pr-cscribed bv tlrc Act is violation of Section 7 (l ) and 7 (3) ol C(f'll'] Ar:t, rrlrlclr is Pr-rLri:.; rable under Sci:tiorl, 20 ol- lhc Ac't. liccLion 5 ol CC)'l'l' Act. clr als 'vitl-r prohibrtion of advcrtiscment r,f ciqnrcttcs anct otht-'r tot iri'co prodttcts, s,hich is punish;rbJc r rrrclcr Sct'tion 22 ol' C()Tl'1 r rr:i, but ncr such allegation is fourr<l r tlre en tire rccr-lrd a L att':r:t thc offencc punishablc under ll -' :tiort 22 of CO'IP Act.

¶211

'l'he nu tr rial on record in Crimc Nos.23S >l 20 1,9 of Pa[ancheru F]licc SLaLion, Crirne No.84 of 2Oi,,3 ,l Modugtrla PoUce Stat.ion zr,-rd in C.C.Nos.159 and 16O of 20i6 rr thc filc of Judicial M;1g strate of First Class at Icltapuran: ,titta facie disckrsecl corn nrission of offencc punishable undt'r iic :tic n 2O (2) re :rrl rvitl-r^'/ ',1. , 20 and Section 22 of CO'IP Ar l, i-rcncc ttrc prcx:cc<lings r,r l,rinst thc pe titioncrs in Crime Nos.l)ii:, of 20l8 of P:rLant:hc:ru [) rlrr-:e St:rtion, Crimc No.84 oI i]018 oi I,loclrrgul:r

¶212

Crlp 373 I 2018 and batch MSM, J

¶213

-29 -

¶214

Police Station and in^{C.C.Nos.159and16O of 2O16on the I'ile of} Judicial Magistrate of First^{Class at Ichapuramfor the offences} punishable under the provisions^{of COTPAct cannot be quashed'}

¶215

In the result, these criminal^{petitionNos. 373 1, 3634,} 3765, 3766, 5966,5967,5968,^{5969, 5970, s97t, s972,67s4,} 6755, 6758, 6859, 6954^{and 6955 ol 2018 are allowed' The} proceedings (details of crime^{numbers are given in the table} referred supra) against the^{petitioners herein are hereby} quashed. No costs.

¶216

Criminal Petitions^{Nos. 68 1 1, 68 16, 7081,8216 and 785 1} of 2018, are^{partly a11owed.The proceedingsagainstthe} petitioners in Crime^{Nos.235of 20 18 of PatancheruPolice} Station, Crime No.84^{of 2018 of ModugulaPoliceStationand in} C.C.Nos.159 and 160^{of 2016 on the hle of Judicial Magistrateof} First Class at Ichapuram^{for the offences punishable under} Indian Pena-l Code^{and FSS Act are only hereby quashed while} permitting to^{proceedagainst the petitioners for the offences} punishable under the^{provisions of COTP Act' No costs'}

¶217

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

¶218

JUSTICE M.^{SATYANARAYANA MURTHY}

¶219

27.O8.2014 Ksp

Mahesh Singh Raj Purohith v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Singh Raj Purohith 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

Basheera Begam Vs The State of Telarnlana

Arun Sathunoori Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Khaleed Shaik Vs State of Telagana

Bojanapally Bucha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Ergam Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Munnuru Shobha Vs Sri Muralidhar Rao Sirangi and 4 others