Partly allowed

Bidyuth Bala, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jul 2024CRLP/7464/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition in part, quashing proceedings for IPC and COTPA offences regarding transportation and sale of banned tobacco products, citing legal bars and lack of ingredients, while permitting the trial for NDPS Act offences.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings for offences under IPC Sections 188, 269, 270, 272, 273 and COTPA Section 20(2) were quashed. Prosecution permitted to continue for NDPS Act offence.

Bidyuth Bala, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t^{338s l}

¶2

oF TELANGANA

¶3

rN rHE^HIGH "ou*If3$o-ffosBt#E

¶4

TI.-IESDAY,^{THE NINTH DAY OF JULY} rw"o-i"'-,ousnND^{ANDTwENTY FouR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE^{HON'BLESMTJUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶7

cRl MINAL^{PETITIONN o'.7464 ol2o24}

¶8

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bidvuth^{Bala, S/o Jasadish Bala'} 'ls'9:-4:'^1"3[?"fit;rrlolr',iEl'?;''f' '^{"ni'jiiii,n'qar} no 1' C"hintalamanepalli' f'IuIXn

¶11

'^{[:inf,"u: iali*#'xlmx'*'t'ffi} ::- ; i;,1" ".' ".-,^{i ;}

¶12

AND

¶13

¶14

2 :g*,;fr$:":d,f#:r+J#l-,,'i-"illffi#. Petition^{under Section 482 of Ct 'P 'C praying that in the circumstances} stated in^{the fvlemorand""ttt-|.-o}O t ot Ct*"tPetition'the High Courtmay be oleased^{to quash tn" "rt""Ji"i'} it' rla uo'^{87 of 2024on the file of} chinihalamanepalli^{PoliceSt5iicr"' Kuniaram BheemAsifabad District against the} Petitioner

¶15

l.A. NO:2^{oF 2024}

¶16

Petition under^{Section 482 ot Ct P'C pra.ylq that in the circumstances} stated in^{the Memorandrr'oi Or*nOr of Criminai Petition,the High Court may be} pleased to direct^{tne ,esplnJenG/ E"g'onPolice Station'KomaramBheem} Asifabad District^{to ,"r""="'ir,Jp.p".tyr;i."o in FlR.No.B7of 2024 on the file of} chinthalamanepalli^{Police Siation. 'Komaram Bheem Asifabad District in favor of} the^petitioner.

¶17

This Petition^{coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal^{Petition and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri Y BALA} MURALI, Advocate^{for the Petitioners and the Sri D' ARUN KUMAR' Additional} Public Prosecutor^{on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the} Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910712024

ORDER

CRLP.No.7464 of²⁰²⁴

1HE.St4
R
o
( "4'
f
19 luL 2rJ24
c"
I
Or.- |ArcH ')
-:a--=:_:=>

¶24

ALLOWING^THE CRIMINAL^PETITION

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal Petition is liled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lfor 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 file of the Iearned^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^lPC') , Section 8^{(c) read with} Section 20 (b) (ii) {B) of the Narcotic Drugs and^Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS ActJ and Section 20⁽²⁾ of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products^{Act, 2003(for short} 'the COTP Act').

¶29

Brief facts of the case of the petilioners is that on 27.O3.2O2O while police were in patrolling, they found the^petitioners possessing, selling and purchasing the banned^products viz.,^gutka and ganja respectively, for which, the Police^{registereda case} against the petitioners for the offences alleged against the petitioners are that Sections 188, 269, 27O, 272 and 273 of the IPC, Section 8 (c) read with Section 20^{(b) (ii) (B) of the NDPSAct} and Section 20 (21 of the COTP Act, respectively.^{Basing on the} sard complaint the Police registered^{the case in Crime No.53 of}

¶30

¶31

SI(S,J Crl.P.No.2309 OF 2o24

¶32

2020 and after completron of investigation, they filed charge sheet and the same lvas numbered as S.C.No.24 of 2O2l on the fiie of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶33

Heard Sri Y. Bala Mura.li, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague and did not attract any of the offence. Making his submission, he relied on the judgment of this Court vide order dated 05.07.2021 in Criminal Petition No.152 ol 2O2O, wherein this Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners and he further submitted that the present matter is also covered by that order. As such, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition.

¶35

Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor subrnitted that he has no objection with regard to Sections I88,269,27O, 272, 273 of IPC and Section 20 (2\ of the COTP Act. The petitioners were also charged for the offence under 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 conducted for the offence punishable under NDPS Act.

¶36

¶37

srs,J Crl.P.No.23O9 OF 2024

¶38

RELEVANT PROYTSIONS UNDER IPC:

¶39

"788. Dtsobedtence to order dulg promulgated bg public seruant. - whoeuer, knowing that, bg an order promulgated bg a public seruant laufullA empou.tered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a cerlain act, or to take ceriain propefty in hfs^possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tend.s to cause obstnrction, an\ogance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annogance or injury, to dn! person lawfullg employed, be punisltcd wtth simple impisonment for a term uhich may ertend to one month or uith fine which may ertend to ttuo hundred rupees, or uith both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human ltfe, health or safetg, or causes or tends to^cause a iot or offray, shall be punished uith imprtsonment of either desciption for a term uhich mag ertend to s* months, or Luith rtne uhich mag extend to one thousand rupees, or with botlL

¶40

Explanation: It is not necessary tl&t the offendet should tntend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likelg to produce farm. It ts suffcient that he knows oJ the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to prod.uce, harm.

¶41

nlustration: An ord.er is promulgated by a public seruant lawfullg empowered to Promulgate such order, directing that a reltgtous procession shall no, pass doun a cerlain street. A knouingly tlisobeys the order, and therebg causes danger of ioL A has committed the offence dert.ned in this secrion.^"

¶42

"269. Negligent act likelg to spread infection of disease dangerous to llfe. - Whoeuer unlawfultg or aegligentlA does any act uhich is, and which he knows or has reason to beheue to be, Likelg to spread the nfection of any disease dangerous to ltfe, shal| be punished uith impisonment of either desciption for a term uhtch mag extend to s* months, or with fine, or u.lith both."

¶43

Mawnant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life- - Whoever malignantlg^does ang act uhich is, and uthich he knouJs or has reason to betieue to be, likelg to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shalt be punished uith imprisonment ol either description for a term Luhicll may extend to tuo Vears, or with fine, or utth bottr-"

¶44

Adulteration of food or dink intended lor sale.-Whoever adulterates anA arttcle of food or^drink, so as to make such article noious as food or dink, intending to sell such atticle as food or dink,^or

¶45

¶46

sKs,J Ctl.P-No.2309 OF 2024

¶47

knowing it to be likely that th.e same will be sold as food^{or drink, shatt be punished withimprisonmentof} either description for a lerm u.)hich mdy ertend to six months, or uith fine uhich mag elend to one thousand rupees, or uith bolh."

¶48

"273. Sdle of noious food or dink.- Wtaeuer selb, or ofJers ot eq)oses for sqle, as food or drinlg any article uthich has been rendered or tlo,s become noious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knouing or hauing reason to believe that the same is nonxious as food or drtnk, sholl be punished with imprtsonment ol eilher desciption for a tem which maA ertend. to six monlhs, or unth fine uthich mag extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

¶49

RELEVANT PROWSIOJYS UNDER COTP ACT

¶50

htnishment Jor failure to giue specifed utaming and nicotine and. tq.r contents. -

¶51

(2) AnA person who sells or distributes cigaretles or tobacco producls tuhich do not contain wither on the package or on their label, the specifi.ed uaraing and. the nicotine and tdr contents shall in case of f.rst conuiction be punishable utith rmpisonme for a term, uhich may ertend to one gear, or uith fi.ne which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and, Jor^{the second} or^{subsequentconuiction, u-tith} impisonment Jor a term uhich maV ertend to two Aears and uith rtne uhich maV extend to three *Lousand rupees,"

¶52

The lis involved in the present petition is no more res itttegra. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Chldurala Shyamsubd,er as. Sta:te of Telanganal 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 several judgments, the learned Single Judge had framed the issues, which are as under:

¶53

'^{c.l.P.lrto.3z310f 2018& batch, decidedon27.08.201,8}

¶54

¶55

sr(s,J Ctl.P.No.2309 OF 2024

¶56

{

¶57

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

¶58

Whether the petitioners in all the^petitions are found committing any act with malicious .intention, with knowledge and reason to believe that such act Iikely to spread 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 becomenoxious or is in a state uniit for food or drink or reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink?^If so,^are they Iiable to be proceeded for the offence^punishable under Sections 27O and 273 lPC.?'

¶59

7 . In the very same^judgment, tJ:e learned Single Judge further held that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the 'food' within the definition of Section 3 [) of the FSS Act and the manufacture,^sa-le 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 respondents-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 srnce transportation of noxious food is not^included under Section 273 of IPC. The act done by the^{accusedtherein i.e.,} transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco^{thoughdangerous to} human life, it would not spread or infect or^{cause any diseaseon}

¶60

¶61

sxs,J crl.P-No.2309 OF 2024

¶62

account of transportation and il those products are consumed by human being, it would certainly cause damage to Lhi: health. Therefore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco by itself is not an offence under Section - 270 of lPC. Pan Masala 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 crime 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 {2) read with 7 (2) of COTP Act is illega.l. With the sajd findings, the learned Single Judge has quashed the crimes and calendar cases in the said judgment.

¶63

In Srl Jaganath Enterprises Elurlt Va.sand.hi Tripati Rao

¶64

as. The Stdte of And.hra Pradeshz, a Iearned 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 therein, various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and relying on the principle laid down in Anand Ramdhani Chaurasiq,s, ,Ioseph Kurlan vs. State of Keralaa , Sagged Ilassan Sagyed Subhans, M/s. Pepslco India HoldinSs (pat)

¶65

'^{zozo1r1 alr} 1ca.1^{21s (ApHc)}

¶66

3 2019 SCC OnLine 80m 1857

¶67

o t995 1ty sc.t zzu t 2ot8 arR 1sc1 slaa

¶68

¶69

sI(s,J crLP.No.2309 OF 2O24

¶70

Ltd., vs. State of U.P.6, Sanjag Anjag Stores us. Union of IndiaT, Boop Singh Tgagi as, States, State of Haryana us. Bhajan LaIs and Chidurala Shgamsubd.er^(Supra 1), the learned Single Judge has quashed the FlRs/Calendar^{Cases. The learned} Single Judge referring to the law lajd down in^Chidurala Shgannsubd.er (Supra 1) held that despite the^{saidauthoritative} pronouncement of law, stafus quo continues. The said^judgment attained finality. Even then, the^police are^{registeringcases} against accused on the very same ailegations for^{the very same} offence s.

¶71

Referring to the provisions of Sections - 188, 269, 27O,272 and 273 of IPC, the Iearned Judge in Sri Jaganath^{Enterprises held} that the offences registered under the said Sections are^not maintainable. It further held that the^{provisions of the COTP Act} can only be pressed into service in the^{limited circumstances only} where there is violation of Sectioos - 4, 5, 6,7 and^{10 of the COTP} Act. By referring to the principle laid down^{by the Apex Court in} Bhajan Lal and M/s. Pepsico India Holdings^{(Pvt) Ltd., the learned} Single Judge has quashed the^proceedings in^various crimes /calendar cases.

¶72

5 2011 (2) crimes 250

¶73

7 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 16323

¶74

t 2oo2 crt.L.J. 2872

¶75

'g^{1992supp(1)scca35}

¶76

¶77

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

¶78

Another Iearned Single Judge of the High Court oi Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in V.Nagesuara Rao us. State oJ Andhra Prad.eshro had also an occasion to deal with the said issue and agreed with the principle laid down in Chldurala Shgamsubd.er (Supra 1).

¶79

il. ln Sagged. Ilossan Sagged Subhan (Supra 5), the Apex Court while dealing with legality of the order passed by the Bombay High Court in a batch of criminal writ petitions and criminal applications, which were hled challenging the registration of FIRs for the offences under Sections * 188, 272,273 and 328 ot IPC and Seclions - 26 and 30 of FSS Act where there is an allegation of transportation and sale of Gutka/Pan Masala etc., held that the judgment of Bombay High Court is contrary to the provisions of the Act and law iaid 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 i:a the FIRs, which are subject matter of the cases pending before the Bombay High Court.

¶80

L2. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law in the aforesaid judgments, as discussed above, coming to the facts of the cases on hand, the allegations against the accused in respective

¶81

ro 2O2O Supreme (Ap) 348

¶82

¶83

SKS,J Crl-P-No.23O9 OF 2024

¶84

cases are transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., respectrvely. In Chidurala Shgamsubd.er (Supra 1), the learned Single Judge observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 27O ol IPC and that manufacturing of pan masala is not included in Section 273 of IPC and, therefore, lhe same is not an offence slnce it is not a noxious food. The Ieamed Single Judge has further observed in the said judgment which is as under:

¶85

'... The act done bV the petitioners i.e., transportatton of khaini and cheuting tobacco though dangerous of human life, it uould not spread or infed or casue any disease on account of transportation and if those products are consumed by fuiman being, it utould certainly cause damage to the health, Therefore, transportation of ktaini or cheuing tobacco is not bg itself is not an ofJence under Section - 27O of IPC and tt Lloutd fall uithin Section 27O of IPC."

¶86

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 play or drink is adulterated. There is no definition of 'adulteration' in IPC. The dellnition 'adulterant'is found in the provisions of the FSS Act. Section - 3 (1) (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulterant' which means a materia-l which could make the 'food' unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded. According to Section - 272 of IPC, if a material is used to make the food unsafe/ sub-standard or mis-branded,^then

¶87

¶88

sxs,J Crt.P.No.2309 Of 2024

¶89

only the offence would be attracted. Whereas, as discussed supra, the allegation in the present batch of cases is rvith regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco/ tambaku/ gutka/ khaini I zarda/ pan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the said allegation does not fall within the ambit of Section - 272 ol lPC. Therefore, I agree with the principle laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rn Cll.idurala Shgamsubder (Supra 1), Sri Jaganath Enterprises (Supra 2) and, V.Nageswara Rqo {Supra 10).

¶90

In ..Ioseph Kurian (Supra 4), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for Section 272 - IPC to be attracted, the following should be present. (1) That the article involved was food and drink meant to be consumed by live persons; (21 tbat the accused adulterated it and the adulteration rendered it hoxious 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 articlr: cannot be sold as food or drink. The Honble Supreme Court cl*rrly held that the offence is completed on the introduction of the adulterant, 'Adulterant' would mean that a material which is mixed to make the 'food' unsafe or drink unsafe. In the present case on hand, tobacco is not a food or drink and what is stated to be mixed in it is not clearly established by any cogent material as an 'adulterant'

¶91

¶92

st(s,J Crl.P-No.2309 OF 2O24

¶93

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

¶94

Section - 273 of IPC dea-ls with sale^of a^{noxious food or} drink, and as per which, whoever^seIls, or^offers or^{exposes for} sale, as food or drink, any article which^{has beenrenderedor has} become noxious, or is in a state unfit^{for drink, knowingor 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 unfit^{for "food or drink"Thus,} the said section would apply,^{when an article which has become} noxious or which has been rendered noxious. It^{also appliesto} food or drink only. As held in Sri^{jaganath Enterprises, the word} 'noxious'is not defined in IPC or in 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 a:rd purchase of banned products viz., etc., tobacco/tambaku/gutka/khein,i/zarda/pan masala

¶95

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

¶96

¶97

SKS,J Crt.P.No.2309 OF 2O2a

¶98

As far as Section - 188 of IPC is concerned, as per the settled law on the subject, before an accused is charged, there must be; an order duiy promulgated by the public servant; the public servant must have the lawful authoritJz to promulgate 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 Tlagi a Division bench of Allahabad High Court held that right to promulgate the ordinance/order is also an issue which is being raised, because under the FSS Act, 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.

¶99

In iV.?. Rama Rao vs. The State of A,p., rep bg pubtic Prosecutortt while dealing with the offences under Sectiot-ts - lgg and 283 of IPC, the learrrid Single Judge of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under:

¶100

'5) Euen if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at tlvee road jinctions corltrory to the permission accorded for conducting of a pubUc meeting only at one specified place b true, such a diredion mder Section 3O of the Police Act, 1861 could haue been giuen ontg by the Superintendent or lhe Assrbtan, $tpeintendent oJ

¶101

ll Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009

¶102

¶103

SI(S,J Crl.P,No,2309 OF 2024

¶104

Police of the Distict but not bg ang of their subordmates. If such a^permission is^granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is uioLeted, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of CnrnLrtal Procedure mandates that the complainl in this regard hg.s to be made by the publtc seruant concerned or some other person to whom _ such a public serva\t is administrqtlueLg subordinate Lo enabLe any Court^to take cognizance of an offence under Section¹⁸⁸ of Code of Ciminal Procedure. In the^{present case,the} charge sheet utas fi.Ied bg the Sub Inspector^{of Police,} who could not haue been the authorttg to^grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/ charge sheet is in uiolation of^the mand.atory prouision of Section 195⁽¹⁾ 9a) oJ Code of Crtminat Procedure.

¶105

That apart, the offence alleged to^haue been commitled under^Sectton 283 of^{the Indian} Penal Code bg the^petitioners and others^{is obuiouslg} in consequence to the alleged offence under^Section 188 of Indidn Penal Code ond is^not an^tndepend.ent of the same. Euen otherutise, the conduce^{of public} meeting dt three mad^junaions or obstruction^{to the} tralrtc could not haue been considered as^causing any d.anger or injury to anA person. In so far as^the obstruction in ang public utag is concemed, uhich can also be couered bg Section 283 of the^Indidn Penal Code, the charge sheet cites onlg one uLitness to speak about the traffic^jam caused bg the^road shout. But, uhea the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and iI^the gathering for that public meeting resulted in ang inconuenience bg wag of obstructtng the traff.c,^the same cannot be consid.ered to be with^necessary guilty mens rea to consttue the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code.^Under the circumstances, none of the olfences^allegedcan be said to haue ang reasonable basis and in^ang uieu.), the complaint/ charge^sheet being^{in uiolation} of Section 195^{(1) (a)} of Code of Crtminal^procedure, hos to faiL.

¶106

As the complaint has failed due to^its unsustainability, the prcceedtngs in their^entirely haue to fail, though the lst accwsed^alone approached. this Court bg wag of this^Criminal Petitton. "

¶107

ln Thotq Chandra Selchar us.^{The state ofAndhra} Pradesh, through S.ILO., P.S. Elurrt Rura<sup>West Godaaari

¶108

't4

¶109

srs,J Ctl.P.No-23O9 OF 2024

¶110

Districtrz, wherein by relying on various^judgment including JV. ?. Rd.md. Roo (Supra 11) and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in BhqJan Ial (Supra 9) more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express Iegal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Acr (under which a criminal 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 that the proceedings in the said C.C were quashed by exercising porver under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It was also further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtajning prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cogrrizance on the complaint frled by V.R.O and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (l) (a) of Cr.P.C.

¶111

With regard to the offences under COTP Act, it is relevant to mention the objects and the reasons of the said Act itself ctearly 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 thercwith or incidental thereto. A reading of the said objects of the said Act rvould reveal

¶112

1t Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decrded on 26.10_2016

¶113

¶114

SKS,J Crt.P,No.2309 OF 2024

¶115

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^{personhaving the control} over a medium can advertise cigarettes^{or tobacco products,and} no person shall be^part of any adverlisement.

¶116

Section - 20 of COTP Act deals with Punishment^{for failure} to give speciJied warning and nicotine and tar contents.^{But, in the} complaints/charge sheets, there is no^{a.llegationagainst the} petitioners that they were carrying on trade or commerceⁱⁿ contraband or any other tobacco^{products without iabeland} specified warning on the said^products. In^{view of the same,the} contents of the complaints / charge sheets^{lack the ingredients of} Section 20⁽²¹ of the COTP Act.^{Even there is no ailegationthat the} seized products do not contain^{labels with statutorywarning.} Thus, registering the crimes for the said^{offence againstthe} petitioners is not only contrary to Section - 20^{(2) of COTP Act, but}

¶117

¶118

SJ(S, J CrI.P- No-23O9 OF 2O2a

¶119

also contrary to the principle laid dolr,n in Chidurala Shyamsubder. In view of the same, the offence under Section 20 (2) of COTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree with the principle laid d o',r,n by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidura-la Shyamsubder, Sri Jaganath Enterprises and V. Nageswara Rao.

¶120

In view of the above said discussion, according to this Court, transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of tobacco products are not tota.[y 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 the IPC and Section 20 (2) ot COTp Acr are attracted to the present case. Insofar as the offence under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, rhe petitioner is liable to be prosecuted.

¶121

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed in Part and the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.l and 2 in S.C.No.24 of 2O2l, on the file of the iearned 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) ot t}.e COTP Act only are hereby quashed while permitting the prosecution to

¶122

¶123

sr(s,J crl.P.No.2309 OF 2O24

¶124

proceed further agalnst the petitioners/ accused Nos.l and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act

¶125

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

K. SUJANA, J

Date:75.O4.2024

Srql

Bidyuth Bala, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bidyuth Bala, 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

Syed Furkhan Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Nagavelli Prem Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Gowtham Kampa Vs The State of Telangana

Gundarapu Sneha Latha Vs State of Telangana

India Karthik Vs The State of Telangana

Pottipally Vijay kumar Vs The State of Telangana