Allowed

Bondugula Maheswar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Jul 2024CRLP/7178/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed Criminal Petition No. 7178 of 2024 under Section 482 CrPC, quashing proceedings against the petitioner in FIR No. 363 of 2024. The order grounded the decision on a previous judgment (Crl.P. No. 2309 of 2024) covered by counsel, directing the return of seized property upon identification.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No. 363 of 2024 were quashed. The Station House Officer/Investigating Officer is directed to return seized property upon proper identification and verificat

Bondugula Maheswar Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^338s ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE^{K. SUJANA}

¶6

CRIMINAL P^{ETITION NO: 7178 OF 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bondugula lt4aheswar, S/o-^{Narayana,, Occu.Business,age^d:5l years'Rl/o} H. No] 7- 4- 24,^{Subhashnagar.Prop: Bala Thripura SundariTrading} company, Gandhinagar,^{Sircilla, Rajanna SircillaDisrtict.}

¶9

... Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Sub- lnspector of^{Police, Sircilla Potice station,Rajanna Sircilla district.}

¶13

...ResPondenUComPlainant

¶14

Petition under section 482 ol^{cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances} stated in the l\rlemorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Pbtition, the High court may} be pleased to^quash the^{proceedingsin FIR NO. 363 ot 2024 on the file of} Sircilla Police Station,^{RajannaSircilla Districtagainst the Petitioners'}

¶15

l.A. NO: 2OF 2024

¶16

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P .c praying that in the circumstances} stated in the trilemorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition, the High courtmay} be pleased to direct the^{respondents/sircilla police station to releasethe property} seized in FIR NO. 363^{ot 2024 on the file of Sircilla Policestation,Rajanna} Sircilla District in favor of^{the petitionet.}

¶17

This Petition coming^{on for hearing' uponperusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of criminal^{Petition and upon hearing the argumentsof sri Y. Bala} Murali, Advocate for the^{Petitionerand sri s.Ganesh, AssistantPublic} prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for^the Respondent No.2

¶18

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7178 of 2024

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') ro quersh the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused in Crime No.363 of 2024 on the file of Sircilla Police Station, Rirjanna Sircilta District, rcgistered for the offences punishable under Section 27O of IPC and Sections 7(1]r, 2O(2) of COTPA.

¶24

¶25

Heard Sri Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for rhe petiLioner as rvell as Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-State. Perused the record.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioncr submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated I 5. O4.2 O24 in Criminal PetiLion No.2309 of 2024.

¶27

4.^' L,earned Assistant Public Prosecutor also suhmitted that the issue in the present criminal petition is covered try the earlier order in the above criminal petition.

¶28

In view of the said representation and as thc mat.tcr rs squarely covered by the order in the above crinrinal petition, this criminal petition is allowed in terms of the above said order,

¶29

¶30

adopting the reasonitrg^{contained therein. Theproceedings} against the^pe titioncr/^{accusedin Crime No 363 of 2024 on thc} Iile of Sircilla Police^{Station, RajzrnnaSircilla District,are hercbl'} quashed. Further, the Station^{House Officer/[ nvestigating} Offrcer is hereby directed^{to return the seized propertyon proper} identihcatioh and^{verihcationunderdue acknowledgmcnl.}

¶31

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, in this Criminal}

¶32

Petition shall also stand^closed.

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

Sd/. A.V.S. P SAD, ASSISTANT REG TRAR SECTION FFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

The Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Suryapet.

¶37

The Station House Officer, Sircilla Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla district.

¶38

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

¶39

One CC to Sri Y. Bala Murali, Advocate IOPUC]

¶40

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0410712024

't
1t\ e S TA
(
/q t
o JtJt 2UI c''
t 2
iLl {.t
, t)E PAT C CO

¶46

ORDER

¶47

CRLP.No.7178 ot 2024

¶48

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶49

2<br><br>

¶50

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.23O9 OF 2024

¶51

ORDER:

¶52

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 ltor short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos.l and 2 in S.C.No.24 of 2021, on the hle of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 27O, 272,273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1 860 (for short 'the IPC'), Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short'the NDPS Act') and Section 2O (2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2O03 (for short the COTP Act).

¶53

Brief facts of the case of the petitioners is that on 27 .O3 .2O2O while police were in patrolling, they found the pctitioners possessing, selling and purchasing the banned products viz., gutka and ganja respectively, for which, the Police registered a case against the petitioners for the offences allcged against the petitioners are that Sections 788, 269, 27O, 272 and 273 of the IPC, Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and Section 20 (21 of the COTP Act, respectively, Basing on the said complaint the Police registered the c:rse in Crime No.53 of

¶54

¶55

SI(S,J Crl-P.No.2309 oF 2024

¶56

2O2O and after completion of investigation, they filed charse sheet and the same was numbered as S.C.No.24 of 2O2l on the file of rhe VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyde rabad.

¶57

Heard Sri Y. Bala Murali, learned counsei appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondcnts.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted tl-rat the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague and did not attract any of the offence. Making his submission, he reliecl or-r the judgment of this Court vide order dated 05.07.2O21 in Criminal Petition No. 1 52 of 2O2O, wherein this Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners and he further submitted that the prescnt matter is also covered by that order. As such, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition.

¶59

Per contra, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor sultmitted that he has no objection with regard to Sections 188,269,27O, 272, 273 of IPC arrd Section 20 (2) ot the COTP Act. The petitioners were also charged for the offence ur-rder Section Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDpS Act and he has prayed the Court that the trial has to be conductcd for the offencc punishable under NDPS Act.

¶60

¶61

SKS,J C.I-P.No.2309 OF 2024

¶62

RELEVANT PROTIISTO]VS UNDER IPC:

¶63

"788. Disobedience to order dulg promulgated bg public seruant. u,hoeuer, knotuing thaL bu an orde-r promulgated bg a public seruant lawfu g empoLuered to promulgate such order, he s directed to obstain from o cerlain act, or to take certain propefig in his po.s-ses-sion or under his management, disobegs such direction, shal( if such disobedience causes or tends lo cause obstruct[on, annogonce or in1ury, or isk of obsLruction, qnnoAance or injury, to ong person lawfullg emploqed, be puntshed with simple impisonment for a term which maA exlend to one month or u.)ith fne which mctg extend to two hundred n)pees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or lrends to cause daager to human hfe, heallh or sqfetg, or causes or tends to cause a iot or alfrag, shall be punished uith impisonrnent of either desciption for a term which may extencl to six monthq or uith fne uthich mag extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

¶64

Explanation: It is not necessary that the offender should tntend to produce h<trm, or conlemplate his disobedience as likely to produce hqrm. It rs sufrri.cient tLlat he knous of the order which he disobeys, and thot his disobedience produces, or s likelg to produce, hann.

¶65

Illuslrqtion: An order is promulgated by a pubLic seruant lawfullg empowered to promulgate such order, directing thqt o reLigious procession sh(]Ll nol po.ss down a certain street. A knoutngLg disobegs the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A ho.s committed the offence defi.ned in this section."

¶66

"269. Negligent act likelg to spread infcction of disease dangerous to ltfe. Whoeuer unlawfullg or negligentlA does ang ctct u-thich is, and which hc knotus or has reason to belieue to be, tikeLg to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with impisonment of either desciption Jbr a tem whtch mog extend to six months, or with fute, or tDith both.^"

¶67

27O. Malignant act likelg to spread infection of disease dangerous to liJe. - Whoeuer malignantlA does ang act which is, and which he knows or has reeson to belieue to be, likelg to spread the infection of ang disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with impisonment of either desciption for a term which mag extend to ttDo Aears, or with f.ne, or with both.^"

¶68

Adulteration of Jood or dink intcnried for sale.-Whoeuer adulterates ang article of food or dink, so os ro make such article noi.ous as food or clnnk, intending to sell such arTicle as Jood or drink, or

¶69

¶70

SKS,J CrI.P.No.2309 OF 2O24

¶71

knouting il Lo be likely tltet the stzme uin be sold as foocl^{or dnnk,shall be punished uith imprisonment} of either descnption for a lerm whtch rnag ertend to sLx months, or u h fne uhich mag extend to one thousand rllpees, or wLth both."

¶72

"273. Sele of noxious food or dink. Whoeuer sells, or offers or erposes for sale, as food or dink, ang articLe uhich ha.s been rertdered or hqs become noxiorzs, or is it a stale unfit for lood or dink, knowing or hauing reoson to beLieue that the same is nonxious as Jood or dink, shall be punished wth impisonment of either description for a term L.uhich maA e-x:tend ,o slx mo,rlhs, or wtth fi.nc uthich mag extend to one thousand rupees, or uih both. "

¶73

RELEVANT PROWSIO]VS UNDER COTP ACT

¶74

h.tnishment for failure to giue specrfed utarning end nicotine and tar contents.-

¶75

(2) Ang person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products Luhich do not contoin wither on the package or on their bbel, the specifi.ed u)arnlng ond lhe nicotine and tar corutents shall in case of fi.rst conuiction be punishable tuith impisonment for a term, uthich maA ertend to one Vear, or uith fine uhich mag exterLd to one thousand ntpees, or u.tith both, and, for^{thesecondorsubsequent conuiction,} uith impisorrmenl Jor a term uhich moA ertend to two Aears and with fne which tnoA extend to three thousand tupees."

¶76

The lis involved in the present petition is no mor-e res integra. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the Stare of Andhra Praclesh in Chidurala Shgamsubd.er us. Stote of Telanganar had an occasion to deal with the issues involved in the present criminal petition. After referring to various provisions of IpC, COTP Act and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts in scveral judgmcnts, the learned Single Judgc had framed the issues, rvhich are as under: '^{Crl.PNo.3731of 2018& batch,decidedon 27O8.2O78}

¶77

¶78

sxs,J Crl.P.No.23Og OF 2024

¶79

"1) Whether the respondent/ Sub-[nspector of Police, is competent to investigate into the offence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) of FSS Act?

¶80

Whether the petitioncrs in all the petitions arc found committing any act with malicious intention, with knowledge and reason to believe that such act likely to sprcad the infection of any disease dangerous to life? And whether the petitioners selling or offering or exposing for sale as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious or is in a state unht for food or drink or reason to believc that the same is noxious as food or drink? If so, are they liable to beproceeded for the offence punishable under Sections 27O and 273 IPC.?"

¶81

In the very same^judgment, the learned Single Judge further held that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the 'food' within the definition of Section 3 fi) of the FSS Act and the manufacture, sale or exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is governed by the provisions of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the provisions of IPC. The rcspondents-Police are incompetent to investigate the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (1) of the FSS Act and allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the statements do not disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section 273 of IPC since transportation of noxious food is not included under Section 273 of lPC. The act done by the accused therein i.e-, transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco though dangerous to human life, it would not spread or infect or cause any disease on

¶82

¶83

SKS,J CrI.P-No.2309 OF 2O24

¶84

account of transportation and if those products are consrrmed by human being, it would certatnly cause damage to the healtl-r. Thercfore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco by itself is not an offence under Section - 27O of IPC. Pan Masal:r is not a tobacco product to fall within the purview of COTP Act. Therefore, the provisions of the COTP Act have no application, thereby registration of crimc on the ground of violation of Sections - 7 ( 1) (2) (3) (5) and Section 26 of COTP Act is an illegality. The learned Single Judge further held that registration of cases for the offence under Section - 20 (21 read with 7 (2) of COTP Act is illegal. With the said findings, the learned Single Judge has quashed the crimes and calendar cases in the said judgment.

¶85

8. In Sri Jaganath Enterprises Elunt Vasandhi Tripati Rao

¶86

vs. The State of Andhrq. Prad.esh2, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati had also an occasion to deal with the said issue. After referring to the contention of the respective parties thercin, various provisions of IPC, FSS Ac1, COTP Act and relylng on the principle laid down in Anand. Ramd.hani Chaurasia3, Joseph Kurian vs. State of Keraloa, Sagged Hassan Sogged Subho'ns, M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (put)

¶87

'^{zozo (r)au(crt.) 215} {APHc)

¶88

'2019^{SCC onLin"Bom 1857}

¶89

^ tggs lt) sct ztt

¶90

'20ts^nrn 1sc1^s:as

¶91

¶92

SITS,J Crl-P-No.2309 OF 2O24

¶93

Ltd., os. State oJ U.P.6, Sanja.g Anjag Stores us. Union of Ind.ia7, Boop Singh Tgagi vs, States, State of Haryana as. Bhajan Lale and Chidurala Shgatnsubder (Supra 1), the learned Single Judge has quashed thc FIRs/Calendar Cases. The learncd Single Judge referring to the law laid down in Chid.urala Shgamsubder (Supra 1) held that despite the said authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues. The said judgment attained finality. Even then, the police are registering cases against accused on the very same allegations for the very same offences.

¶94

Referring to the provisions of Sections - 188, 269, 27O, 272 and 273 of IPC, the learned Judge in Sri Jaganath Enterprises held that the offences registered under the said Sections are not maintainable. It further held that the provisrons of the COTP Act can only be pressed into service in the limited circumstances only where there is violation of Sections - 4, 5, 6, 7 and 1O of the COTP Act. By referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal and M/s. Pepslco India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings in various crimes/calendar cases.

¶95

6 2011 (2) crimes 250

¶96

7 2017 sCC OnLine Cal 16323

¶97

" zooz crl.t.l zz'lz

¶98

'^{t992Supp (1)scc 335}

¶99

¶100

SKS,J CrI.P-No.2309 OF 2024

¶101

Another learned Single Judge of the High (lourt ol Andtrra Pradesh at Amaravati rn V.Nagesulara Ro,.o us. State of And hra Prad.eshro had also an occasion to deal with the said issue.rnd agreed with the principle laid down in Chidurala Shgatnsubd.er (Supra 1) .

¶102

1 1. In Sagged. .Efassan Sayged Subhan (Supra 5), the Apex Court whiie dealing with legality of the order passed by the Bombay High Court in a batch of criminal writ petitrons and criminal applications, which were filed challenging the registration of FIRs for the offences under Sections - 188,272, 273 and 328 of IPC and Sections - 26 and 30 of FSS Act where there is an allegation of transportation and sale of Gutka/Pan Mas:rla etc., held that the judgment of Bombay High Court is contrarv to the provisions of the Act and law laid down by it. With the said finding, the Apex Court remitted the matter to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration on the issue that whether the aforesaid offences are made out in the FIRs, which are subject matter of the cases pending before the Bombay High Court,

¶103

In view of the authontative pronouncement of law in the aforesaid judgments, as discussed above, coming to the facts oI the cases on hand, the allegations against the accused in respective

¶104

1o 2020 Supreme (AP) 348

¶105

¶106

SKS,J crLP.No.2s09 oF 2024

¶107

cases are transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., respectively. ln Chid.urala Shgomsubder (Supra 1), the learned Singie .Judge observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or khaini or pan rnasala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section - 27O of IPC and that manufacturing of pan masala is not included in Section 273 of IPC and, therefore, the same is not an offence since it is not a noxious food- The learned Single Judge has further observed in the said judgment which is as under:

¶108

"... The act donc bA the petittoners i.e., transportatlon of khaini and cheuing tobacco though dangerous of human life, it nrould not spread or inJect or casue ang disease on account of transportqtion and rf those products are consumed bg human being, it would certainlg cause damage to the heolth Therefore, transporTation of khaini or chetuing tobacco is not bg itself is not an offence under Sechon - 270 of IPC and it would fall utithin Sect[on 27O of IPC."

¶109

Section - 272 of IPC makes punishable an offence by a person, who adulterates any article of food or drink. Therefore, the said section would only come into piay or drink is adulterated. There is no dehnition of 'adulteration' in IPC. The definition 'adulterant' is found in the^provisions of the FSS Act. Section - 3 ( 1) (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulterant' which means a material which could make the^'food' unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded. According to Section - 272 of IPC, if a^materialis used to make the food unsafe/sub standard or mis-branded, then

¶110

¶111

SI(S,J C.l-P.No.2309 OF 2024

¶112

only the oflence would be altracted. Whereas, as discusse,l supra, the allegation in the present batch of cases is rvith re:gard to transportation, possession, storage, szrle and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco f tambaku/ gutka/ klnair,i /zarcla/pan masala etc., respectrvely. Therefore, according to this Court, the said allegation does not fall within the ambit of Sectiorr 272 of lPC. Therefore, I agree with the principle laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shgamsubd.er (Supra 1), Sri Jaganath Enterprises (Supra 2) and V.Nageswara Rao (Supra 1O).

¶113

ln Joseph Kurian (Supra 4), the Honble Supreme Court held that for Section 272 - IPC to be attracted, the following should be present. ( i ) That the article involved was food and drink meant to be consumed by live persons; (2) that the accusecl adulterated rt and the adulteration rendered it noxious as a 'food or drink'; (3) that the accused knew at the time of adulteration that he would sell the article as food or drink and knew that such article cannot be sold as food or drink. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clea y held that the offence is completed on the introduction of the adulterant. 'Aclulterant' rvould mean that a material which is rnixed to make the 'food' unsale or drink unsafe. In the present case on hand, tobacco is not a food or drink and what is stated to be mixc,d in it is not clearly established by any cogent material as an 'adulterant'

¶114

¶115

SITS,J Crl.P.No.2309 OF 2024

¶116

for the offence under Section - 272 of IPC to be pressed into servrce

¶117

Section - 273 of IPC deals with sale of a noxious food or drink, and as per which, whoever selIs, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is rn a state unfit for drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment specified therein. Therefore, if a person offers for sale a "food or drink" any article which has become noxious or is in a state of unht for "food or drink". Thus, the said section would apply, when an article which has become noxious or which has been rendered noxious. It a-Iso applies to food or drink only. As held in Sri^jaganath Enterprises, the word 'noxious'is not defined in IPC or rn FSS Act. As per the dictionary meaning, the word 'noxious' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As stated above, the allegation in the criminal petition is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco/tambaku/gutka/khatni/zarda/pan masala etc.,

¶118

respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section - 273 of IPC.

¶119

¶120

ST(S,J CrI.P-No.2309 OF 2O24

¶121

As far as Section - 188 of IPC is concerned, as per th,: settled law on the subject, before an accused is charged, there ntust be; an order duly promulgated by the public serv.ut; the public scrvant must have the lawful authority to promuJgate the order; the person flouting the same should have knowledge about the order directing him to abstain from the act; he must disobey the said order with the knowledge; and such disobedience of the duly promulgated order should cause a danger to the human life etc. In Boop Singh Tyagi a Division bench of Allahabad High Cor,rrt held that right to promulgate the ordinance/order is also ar-r issue which is being raised, because under the FSS Ar:t, the Commissioner of Food Safety alone has the authority to pass the orders only if the article of 'food'can causes danger or is injurious to health.

¶122

In JV.?. Ratna Rao as. The State of A.P., rep bg Public Prosecutorlt while dealing with the offences under Sections 188 and 283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge of thc combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under:

¶123

"5) Euen if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctons contrary to the pennission accorded J'or conducting oj' a public meeting onlg at onc specifi.ed place is true, such a d[rect[on under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could haue been giuen onlg bg the Supeintend.ent or the Assistant Supeintendent ol'

¶124

" Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.Og.2oog

¶125

slrs,J CrI.P.No.2309 OF 2024

¶126

Police of the District buL not bti any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of thc PoLice Act, 1861 and is u[olated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that lhe complaint tn lhis regard has to be made bg the publrc seruant concerned or some other person to whom such a public seruqnt is administratiuelg subordinqte to enable anA Court to take cognlzance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Ciminal Procedure. In the present case, the chqrge sheet uas .fiLed bA the Sub Inspector of Pol[ce, who could not haue been the authoritA to grant pennission for the publrc meeting and therefore, the complaint/ charge sheet is in Diolation of the mandatory prouision of Section 195 (1) 9a) of Code of Criminal Procedure

¶127

That apert, the offence alleged to haue been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code bg the petitioners and others ts obuiouslg in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of lndian Penal Code and is nol an independent of the same. Euen otheruuise, the conduce of pubtic meeting at three road^junctions or obstnlction to the traffic could not haue been considered as causing ang danger or injury to anq person. In so far as the obstruction in any public utag is concerned, uhrch can also be couered bg Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic 1am caused ba the road shou. But, uhen the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been peflnitted and if the gatheing for that public meeting resulted in ang inconuenience bg u.'ag of obstructing the traff.c, the same cannot be considered to be uith necessary guiltg mens reo to construe the eistence oJ on offence punishabLc under lndian Penal Codc. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to haue any reasonable basis and in ang uiew, the complaint/ charge sheet being in uiolqtion of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Cimirual procedure, hos to fait.

¶128

As the complaint has Jailed due to its unsustainabilitg, the proceedings in their entirelA haue to fail, though the l't accused alone approached this Court bg uag of tltis Criminal Petition. "

¶129

ln Thota Chandra Sekhr:r us. The state o.f Andhro. Pradesh, through S.-Ef.O., P.S. Eluru Rurol, West Godaaari

¶130

¶131

SITS,J Crl.P.No.2309 OF 2024

¶132

Districtt2, wherein by relying on various judgment tncluding JV. ?. Rq.md. Ra.o (Supra I 1) and also the guidelines lard dorvn by thc Apex Court in Bhojan .La I (Supra 9) more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar cngrzrftecl in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a crirninal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, it was held r hat the proceedings rn the said C.C were quashed by exercisinl; power under Section - 482 ol Cr.P.C. It was also further held that the proccedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint fi1ed by V.R.O and it is against the purport of Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.

¶133

With rcgard to the offences under COTP Act, it is rek.vant to menlion the objects and the reasons of the said Act itself clearly state that the act is meant to prohibit the advertisement of, and to provide for the regulation of trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, cigarettes and other tobacco products and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. A reading of the said objects of the said Act would reveal

¶134

r2 Criminal Petition No 1524A ot 2076, decided on 26.10.2016

¶135

¶136

srs,J Crl.P.No.2309 OF 2024

¶137

that a total ban of tobacco products was not envisaged by the said Act. The Parliament merely felt it expedient to control the advertisement and sale of tobacco products. As noted earlier in the order, Section - 3 (p) of the COTP Act and the schedule therein define tobacco products. Pan Masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the definition of tobacco products. Section - 5 of the COTP Act deals with prohibition of advertisement of cigarette and other tobacco products only. No person, who is engaged in the production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or other products shall advertise the same. Similarly, no person having the control over a medium can advertise cigarettes or tobacco products, and no person shall be part of any advertlsement.

¶138

Section - 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. But, in the complaints/ charge sheets, there is no allegation against the petitioners that they were carrying on trade or commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products. In view of the same, the contents of the complaints/charge sheets lack the ingredients of Section 20 12\ of the COTP Act. Even there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain labels with statutory warning. Thus, registering the crimes for the said offence against the petitioners is not only contrary to Section 20 (2) of COTP Act, but

¶139

¶140

SI<.S,J Crl.P.No.2309 OF 2O24

¶141

also cor-rtrilry t() the principle laid down in Chidurala Shgamsubder ln view of the same, the offence under Section 20 (2) of COTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioners. I oncc again rcitcrate that I agree with the principle laid down by the learned Sir-rgle Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder, Sri Jaganath Enterpnses and V. Nageswara Rao.

¶142

In view of the above said discussion, according to this Court, transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of tobacco products are not totally banned in the State of Telangana and also in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sections - 188, 269, 27O, 272 and 273 of t}:e IPC and Section 20 12) of COTP Act are attracted to the present case. Insofar as the offencr: under Section 8 (c) read witl.r Section 20 (b) (i0 (B) of the NDPS ,\ct, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted.

¶143

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed in Part and the proceedir-rgs ag:rinst the petitioners / accused Nos. I ancl 2 in S.C.No.24 of 2O2l , on the hle of the le arned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 27O, 272 and 273 of the IPC and Section 20 (2) of the COTP Act only are hcrcby quashed while permitting the prosecution to

¶144

1,1

¶145

srs,J Crl.P.No.2309 OF 2O24

¶146

proceed further against the petitioners/ accused Nos.l and 2 for the offence punlshable under Section B (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act

¶147

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed

K. SUJANA, J

Datg.l5.O4.2024

e?1 r

Bondugula Maheswar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bondugula Maheswar 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

Vislavath Mahender @ Mehu Naik Vs The State of Telangana

Kampati Lalitha Vs The State of Telangana

Gattu Kanakavva Vs The State of Telangana

B. Amarendra Vs State of Telangana

Dande Yugander Vs The state of Telangana

Bheenaveni Ram Shepherd , Bheenaveni Ramaiah Vs The State of Telangana and another