Allowed

Syed Mahamood v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Dec 2025CRLP/16448/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of FIR registered for possession/sale of banned gutka under Sections 274 and 275 BNS and Sections 7 r/w 20(2) of the COTP Act, and release of seized property. Relying on the Court's earlier order in Crl.P.No.152 of 2020 and batch, the Court quashed the FIR proceedings and directed return of seized property.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.369 of 2025 proceedings against petitioners quashed; SHO/IO directed to return seized property on proper identification and verification under due acknowledgment.

Syed Mahamood Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16448 oF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 9yg_O_lllll.rnood,^{S/o S_yedSharif, Occu.business, aged- 56years,R/o.18-B-} 48517 6l N 1, Edi Bazar, Charminar,Hyderabad

¶9

2 Abdulla Bin Ali ,, S/o. Ali bin Sayee, Occ- Driver, aged- 49years, 18-43-31N3, opp. Mavrik Street School, charminar, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PEfl TtONERyACCUSED(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 fhe^{Stqtg of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the} State of Telangana Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Sub-lnspector of Police, Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad Dist

¶14

...RESPON DENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR NO. 369 oI 2025 On the file of Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad District against the petitioners.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [/emorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents/Begumpet police Station, Hyderabad District to release the property GOA 1000 packets, which contains 60 sachets, for a total of 08 packets of Goa 1000 Gutka, EMD GUTKA box, which contains 50 sachets, as such, 54 boxes, along with two-wheeler bearing No. TG 12 A 0281 , make and model Honda Activa 6G Seized in FIR NO. 369 of 2025 On the file of Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad District in favour of the petitioner No-1 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶18

This^petition comir heanng' upon perusing t re l\rlemorandum of Grounds of criminal o",,;:^"1-t:t i Reddy Representins s ri ;li:i,,f ffi [: H,[:,:'ilI; ] ;:l .[X,*"SI Jithender Rao Veeramara the Additionur prori" prorecutor (r G) on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent Nc. 2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

INTHEHIGHCO URT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATH YDERABAD

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRTMI NALPETTTIO NNo.16448 of 2025

¶22

Date: tt.t2 .2025

¶23

Between:

¶24

Syed Mahamood and another.

¶25

...Petitioners

¶26

AND

¶27

The State of Telangana, _[9n^{Uf its Publicprosecuror,} High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another

¶28

...respondents

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No,369 of 2025 on the file of Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad,, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. I and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 274 and 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhith a,2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 7 r/w 2O(2)of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act,2003 (for short .COTp Act,).

¶31

¶32

Heard Ms.B.Keerthi Reddy,^{leamed counsel.epresenting} Mr.Y.Bala Murali,^learned counsel for^{the pel i ionersand} Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, leamed Additional^{Public I']r secutor for} respondent No.l

¶33

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners submitted t rat the issue} raised in this criminal^{petition is squarely coveredl'y the order} passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.152 of^{2020 and tatch, dated} 05.07.2021.

¶34

Leamed Additional Public^{Prosecutor has n()l )pposedthe} submissions made by^{the leamed counselfbr petititln:rs.}

¶35

Taking into consideration the^{submissions I ade by the} respective parties and the order^{passed by thir Court in} Crl.P.No.152 of 2O2O^{and batch, dated 05.07,202 l. tris criminal} petition is allowed. The proceedings^rt1 ,ainst^the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 in FIR No.369 o1^{:025 on the} file of Begumpet Police Station,^{Hyderabad, are hcrc:ry quashed.} Further the Station Flouse Officer/lnvestigating^{Off rt :r is hereby} directed to retum the seized^property on^{proper idenficationand}

¶36

verification under due acknowledgment.

--5I:-1';::'-

__---<rF.-

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶41

closed.

¶42

SD/- NAY^{ANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO} D PUTY^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

CTION OFFICER

To,

The lX^{Additional ChiefJudicial Magistrate at Secunderabad'Secunderabad}

¶47

The SHO,^{Begumpet Police Station'Hyderabad District'}

¶48

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

¶49

4.TwoCCstoPUBL|CPRoSECUToR,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana at HYderabad [OUTI

¶50

Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

JSRJ

DATED:1111212025

CRLP.No.16448 of²⁰²⁵

STAl'f
1 A)
C) \ J u"''
L)
,C
i c r-rIil ,:-/

¶57

CRIMINAL PEITITION^{IS ALLOWED.}

¶58

ta u'-'

¶59

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA}

¶60

AT: HYDERABAD

¶61

CORAM:

¶62

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶63

+CRIMINAL PETITION N^{o.152 OF 2020 & Batch}

¶64

7o Delivered^{on: 05-07-2021}

¶65

Between in Crl.P.^{No.152 of2O20}

¶66

Mr. Mohd. Jameel^Ahmed

¶67

Petitioner

¶68

¶69

$ The State^{of Telangana,rep.by Public Prosecutor} High Court ofTelangana,^{Hyderabacl& another}

¶70

Respondents

¶71

! For respective^Petitioners

¶72

Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed

¶73

Mr. Gajanand^ChakravarthY Mr. K- Surender Mr. Praveen Kumar^Veerjala, Ms. P. Radhika

¶74

Mr. Srinivas^{ReddyBalakisti}

¶75

Ms. C. Sunitha Kumari

¶76

Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar

Mr. S.M. Subhan

Ms. N. Arthi

Mr. Y. Bala Murali

Mr. Boggula Raju

Mr. S. Chandrasekhar

Mr. V. Yadukrishna^Sainath Respective leamed counsel

¶83

^^{For Respondents}

¶84

Learned Public^Prosecutor

¶85

< Gist

¶86

Head Note

¶87

? Cases Referred

¶88

20r8 AtR^{(SC) s348}

¶89

2016 Cr.. L.J.²⁴⁰¹

¶90

2019 SCC Online^Bomt857

¶91

Crl.P. No.373l of20l8^{& batch, decided on 27 08 2018}

¶92

s. 2020(l) ALT(Crt)215^(APHC)

¶93

1995^(t) SCt²⁷⁷

¶94

201 t⁽²⁾ Crimes²⁵⁰

¶95

E. 2017 SCC Online^{Cal 16323}

¶96

2002Cr.L.r.2872 lo 1997 Suno⁽ t) SCC 335

¶97

¶98

KT-.J ( , P i'o I 5) of ](Da &tratch

¶99

HON'BLE SRI JUSI'ICE K. LAKSHi tAN

¶100

CRIMIN AL PETITION Nos.152 153 15s 162 & 5826 ( ) ? 2020 AN D 3498 3500. 3s 09.3 5t4. 3768. 3879.4 046. 4070.4 077. 4098.409' ) 4100 4102 4l l0 4119.414 0,4 t4t. 415I. 4ts7.4 178. 4182.41 87. 4194.421r ). 4230 4247 4249 4251,42 58, 4 262. 4277,43 61. 4405. 4415.4 542. 4612.461: 4622 4632 4640 4681 4727 4775 & 4825 0F 2021.

¶101

COMM ON ORI) ER:

¶102

All the above Criminal petitions are file( to quash the proceedings against the petitioners _ accused in re; lccti'e Crirnes / Calendar Cases. The details of relevant Crirr es ,/ Calendar Cases. oflences alleged, nature of offences etc.. a11 melltioned in

¶103

the following tabular form:

¶104

SI, No	Crl.P No	CrimeNo	Accused Number	Offences allegedly committed	Natureofolfence
0l	t168/2t	2l'7/20ofpS Manoharabad l2l	solc accused	272,273tPC & 20(2) r/w7(2)of COTPA	rirnsfonationoIAmber tobacco
02	1879/21	of pS Kadam	sole accused	2'10&273IPC	iirleofbaruredtobacco d
03	1046/2t	78/21olPS (T) Adilabad	At&2	-do-	roucts aleof gutkir/tobacco
					r!Esl^lt ln odown
04	4077i2t	of PS Eas oan 21t21	sole accused	-do-.	I'osscssionofgutka 'tobacco in panshop
05	4098/21	185/21o1'^pS(T) Ninnal	Alto3	270,27itPC & 20(2)ofCOTpA	TraDspofiatlonof
06	4099/21	No.36121ofpS Koutala	sole accused	270&2TrPc	rohibited tka osscssionoftobacco d
					rouctsinthehouse
07	1100/21	No.38/2tofpS Easgoan	sole accused	2',70&2?3IPC	ossessionofbanned !^rtka&othertobacco Items tn ns
08	4102/2t	455/21ofpS Kukatpally	sole accused	336,273&r88 IPC&s9(i)of FSSA	rnsportationandsale cprohibitedtobacco
09	4I1t/21	45/21of pS Chiragpally	Alto3	270 &273 rPC& 20(2)r/w7(2)of COTPA	roducts lransportatiotrof l()bacco produCt\|
l0	4t5t t2I	198/21ofpS ChoutupPal	sole accused	272&273rPC& 20(2)ofCOTpA	(orageoftobacco rroducts frl
ll	1157/21	134/21ofpS Chityat(NLG)	Alto4	2?2, 273&328 rPC&20(t)&7 (3)ofCOTPA	osae )rchasc andsaleof t^ohibrtedtobacco

¶105

¶106

¶107

KL'J Crt.P No^{t 52 of 2020 & barch}

¶108

t4	424'7/21	61121of^PSU	do sole	Possession^ofbanned roduats
		TownAdilabad	accused	f^utkaand
l5	4249121	fut/2tof^PSt TownAdilabad	-do- Al &2	Sateo^g tobacco cts Abt^transPort
l6	425tl2l	90/21of^PSI TownAditabad	-do- sole accused	tobacco cts outo noxious^{gutka and}
'l		9ll21ofPS^I	do sole	tobacco roducts Sateofbanned^{gutka and}
t	4258121	TownAdilabad	accused	^ofutka
18	4262121	tOZiZtof^PSI Town Adilabad	do A1&2	and tobacco ducts Transportation ^g
l9	4277/21	16212lof^PS AbduttaPurmet	t88,2',12.2'73^& ]28IPC Alto3	Saleof^{bannedtobacco} (tambaku)Producsⁱⁿ
20	4405121	TownNal ^onda 202121of^PSI	r88,2'12&²⁷¹ IPC sole accused	&a./tobacco roducts Transportation^of ^ofbanned
2l	4415/21	N onda 232/21ot^PSlI	-do- sole accused 188 269²⁷⁰	tka/tobacco roducts Possessiou
22	4542121	87/21of^PSlll (T) Kothagudem	At&2 . .^. 271r/wl4^IPC& iotEDA&51 )^ofDMA	Possession^oftobacco products in^kiranashoP
23	46t512l	ZZStZtof^PS Ninnal Town	270&2'7i^IPC Al&2	Possession^ofProhibi^ted tobacco roducts for^sale ^fbanned
24	4640/21	ggtZOofPS	-do- r/wi4tPC AI	Transportation^o tobacco/ tka ckets
		Mamada	^'	^ofbanncd
25	468ll2r	18612lof^PS Peddavoora	328/w^511.272 &2',7)IPC A2	roductsin^kiranasho Possession gutka&tobacco -ransponationof
26	4'72'7tzt	164/21of^PS Adibatla	2'.70.272&²⁷³ IPC&20^(2)ol COTPA	crgarette^{or othertobacco} products^{wlthout valid} Iicensc
2'7	47',]5121	Nat nda ZiqtZt"f^PSt	Atto4 328,212.^273& 188 tPC 328270&²¹¹	Saleof^{gutka& khaini}
28	4825121	Klammam 245121of^PS	, r/w5t1IPC^&20 ofCOTPA 2 AI&2	Transportation^oIbanned tka
			CALEN ^DARCASE 273^&	^S
29	t52120	Waran al 3515/t9^ot I-AJMFC,	Traos 270. t88. 420IPC &58of^FSSA A2	portation^{of bannedzarda} Products
30	t53120	2724/19^of XVIIACMM, Hvd,	FSSA,2OO6 272&²¹³ IPC&59^of A2	Saleof^{zardaillegallY}
3l	155120	Waran al 3518/19^of I-AJMFC,	Tran 420,270^& 213IPC&⁵⁸ ofFSSA A3	sportation^{ofbanncd zarda}
32	t62120	4737/18 of XIAMM, Sec.bad	Sal ch 2'12,273,336 &420lPc^& 20 (2)^of COTPA A2	eofprohibited^{gutka and} ewing^tobaccoProducts
33	582612	il Special Magistrate ofIlClass, 0	Tran 188,270^& 2',13IPC At &2	sportation^ofAmbergutka pockets
34	349812	216120 JFCM, r a 1 of	Sale Al&2 420&273 IPC	ofbanned^{tobaccoandgutka}

¶109

KL,J ( . | --: o/ 2!:t) & harcll

¶110

36	3509/2t	Stong toba(( At&2 188,270& 273IPC.20 (2)ofCOTPA, 3ofEDA& 5l (b)of DMA 452,',20 0f XXVMMC, Ibrahimpatao	rofbannedgutka and other )productsillegallyforsale
	i5l4i2l	Supprl 632/19of xxvMMC, Ibrdhrmparnam Alro8 t88,270,273 &420PC& 20 (2)of COTPA	rfgutkaandothertobacco products
l8	4070t2r	TransD 547/21of PJMFC, Calwel At&2 272&2'73 rPC&20(2) r/w7(2)of COTPA	,rtation of Ambertobacco
39	1tt0/21	Transpr 509i20of Spl.PCR Mobile Court cum- JMFC, Adilabad Alto5 270&273 tPC&20(2) r/w7(2)of COTPA	natiooofpanrnasalaaod banned gurka
		512/20of
40	4tt9t2t	Transp,,r Spl.PCR Mobilc Court-cum- JMFC. Adilabad 2'70,271,272 &273r/w34 IPC Sec.3oIEDA Alro4	ationofcottonsceds and bauedgutka
4t	4 t40,',2t	Transp, r STC No.20/21of IVAMM- cum-[V AJCJ. L,B,NA Ar &2 272&273 IPC&Sec.20 (t),20(2) of COTPA	ation ofbannedrobacco and gutka
42	4t'78,'2t	Purchas, sole accused 270&273 rPC&20(2) ofCOPTA 810/21of IAN4FC. Khammam	ndsaleofbanned gutka
43	4t94/21	Salco1 shopar in.1 Not.No: sole accused 188,272& 273 IPC&20 (2)&5of COTPA 6167/21of XVIIACMM, Nampally	trbacco productslnhis disobeylngthcrules rsedbyGovt.in )5fSS-l/21dr6l21
44	1216/21	Transprr 1298121of PJMFC, k'hammam At&2 270&273 rPC&20(2) ofCOTPA 829/2	.. . rtion ofAmbergutka
45	4230/2t	Transl( tof PJMFC, Khammam At&2 -do-	tationofgutka/pan masala
46	4361/21	Possessrr iI of 108/2t AJMFC, Asifabad At&2 2't0&273 tPC	oftobaccoproducts gallyforsale
47	46t2/2t	Purchase I 533/20of ,{JMFC. Nirmal Sole accused -do	irdsaleofprohibited ka pockets
48	4622t2t	Possession stanr 622i19of AJMTC. Ninnal At&2 do-	(fgutka packetsat bus rrsaleillegally
49	4632/2t	Transportat 13t20of AJMFC, Nirmal A] -do-r/w34 tPC&20(2) ofCOTPA	irnofbanned krbacco )roducts

'I I

!ffi

KL.J Crl.P No.l5) of 1(D0 & barch

¶115

Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti, Ms. C. Sunitha^{Kumari,Mr. Kondadi} Ajay Kumar, Mr. S.M. Subhan, Ms. N. Arthi,^{Mr. Y. Bala Murali,} Mr. Boggula Raju, Mr. S. Chandrasekhar, Mr. V.^Yadukrishna Sainath, leamed counsel appearing^{on behalfof respective petitioners} and learned Public Prosecutor^{appearingon behalfof respondents-} State.

¶116

The question involved in all the^{above matters is one and the} same and, therefore, the same^{are disposedof by way of this common} order

¶117

The main allegations against the^{petitioners- accusedare} that they were transporting,^possessing, storing,^sellingand purchasing the banned products^{viz., tobacco} /^{tambaku Igutka /} khaini / zarda I pan masala respectively.^{The offences allegedagainst} the petitioners are under Sections^{- 188,270,269,271,272,273,328,} 336 & 420 read with 34 and⁵¹ I^{of the lndianPenal Code, 1860 (lor} short 'lPC'); Sections^{- 20 (l),20(2) and 5 read with'7(2) and7 (3) of} the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco^{Products (Prohibitionof} Advertisement and Regulation of^{Trade and Commerce, Production,} Supply and Distribution)^{Act, 2003 (for short 'COTP Act'); Sections-} 58 and 59 ofthe Food Safety^{and Standards Act, 2006 (for short'FSS} Act'); Section - 3 of the Epidemic^{Diseases Act, 1897 (for short 'ED} Act;) and Section - 51^(b) of^{the Disaster ManagementAct,2005 (for}

¶118

¶119

¶120

KL,J (r t -Yo.|52 of 2020 & barch

¶121

The respective learned counsel^{appearing rn} behalf of the petitioners in the above criminal petitions would tubmit that the contents of complaint I charge sheet lacks the trl redients of the offences alteged against the accused. For the ofi nces under the provisions of FSS Act, only Food Safety Officer is I aving power to initiate criminal proceedings against accused and tlt police are not having any power to register a case for the off,: rces under the provisions of FSS Act. There is no inducement by tlit: tetitioners and, therelore, offence undcr Section 420 of IPC c tes not arise. According to them, the contents of complaint / charlrr sheet are also lacking the ingredients ofthe offences under Sections- 269,270,271, 212,273,32tJ and 336 oftPC

¶122

i) According to them, there is no violation of S::tions - 20 (l), 20 (2) and 5 read u.ith 7 (2) and 7 (3) of the CIO I-P Act. The Investigating Officers / Complainants without following the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure,^r73 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), have registered the cases for the offence tr rder Section - 188 of IPC and laid charge sheet against the accus,: l. Necessary ingredients to attract the provisions of Section - 3 of t r : ED Act and Section - 5l (b) of the DM Act are lacking in the corrl laint / charge sheet.

¶123

ii) \X/irL the ohn',- caid crrhmiccinnq the resnr -fi.rr,. lcernad

¶124

¶125

KL.,T Crl.P: No.l52 of2020 & batch

¶126

On the other^{hand, leamed Public Prosecutorreferringto the} principle laid down in^{the State of Maharashtrav' Sayyed Hassan} Sayyed Subhanr by^{the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Ganesh} Pandurang Jadhao^{v. The State of Maharashtra2 and Anand} Ramdhani Chaurasia^{v. TheState of Maharashtra3 by the Bombay} High Court would submit^{that police are having powerto register} cases under various^{provisionsof IPC, COTP Act, ED Act and DM} Act. There is no^{irregularityin registering crimes, seizing material} inctuding the vehicles^{and laying charge sheet againstrespective} accused in the aforesaid^{crimes I calendar cases' Accordingto him,} the accused were^{transporting,possessing,storing,selling and} purchasing the banned^{productsviz', tobacco/ tambaku Igutka I} khaini / zarda I^{pan masala respectivelyAccording to him,the} accused have to^{face either investigation or trial and prove their} innocence, and instead^{of doing so, they have f,rled the present} criminal petitions under^{Section - 482 of Cr'P'Cwhichcannot be} considered at this stage.

¶127

i) With the above^{said submissions, learned PublicProsecutor} sought to dismiss the^{above criminal petitions'}

¶128

In view of^{the above rival submissions,it is appositeto}

¶129

extract the relevant^{provisions of IPC' COTP Act, FSSAct, ED Act}

¶130

and DM Act, which^{are as under:}

¶131

¶132

KL,J ('r \o 152 of20)0 & batch

¶133

RELEVANT PROVIS^{IONSUNDER TPC}

¶134

"188.^{Disobedience to order duly promulgated ry public} servant. -Whocvcr, knowing^{that, by an order prorr rlgatedby} a public servant lawfully ernpowered^{to promulgateuch order'} he is directed to abstain fiom^{a certainact' or to t ke certain} order with certain property in^{his possession ounder his} such management. disobeys such^{direction'shall if} disobetlience causes or tends^{to causeobstruction'a I oyallceor} injury, or risk of ohstmctioll,^{annoyance or injury' t(:ny person} lawfully employed, be^{punishedwithsimple impnstr ment fbr a} tcrm "r'hich rnay extend to one^{monthor rvith fine ' 'hich may} cxtcnd to tu,o hundred nrpees-^{or with both:I r I ifsuch} disobedience causes or trcnds^{to cause danger to l- rman life'} hcalth or safety, or causes or^{tondsto cause a riot or I fray' shall} be punished rvith imprisonment^{of either descnptionlor a term} which may extend to six months,^{or with fine which r Layextend} to one thousand rupees, or^{rvith both}

¶135

Explanation. [t is not^{necessarythat the offer ler should} intcnd to producc harm, or^{contemplatehis disolr dience as} likcly to produce harm. lt is sufficient^{that he knowsc'the order} which he disobeys, and that his^{disobediencepro(l ces' or is} likely to produce, harm.

¶136

lllustration An order is^{promulgated by a pu: ic sen'ant} lawfully empowerecl to promulgate^{suchorder'dire c ing that a} religious procession shall not^{pass down a certair street A} knowingly disobeys thc order,^{and thereby causesda I 1er ofriot'} A has committed the offe nce defined^{in this section '}

¶137

f diseasc "269. Ncgligcnt act likely to spread^infection ' dangerous to life .-Whoever unlarvfully^{or negli ;} ntly does any act rvhich is, ar1d which he knows^{or has reason t::} believe to be, likely to spread the inlection^{of any disease d r} gerous to life , shall be punished with imprisonment^{of eitherr} escnption for^{a term whichmay extendto six months,or with1i} e, or with

¶138

r.nth " '1,r.: ..r,.

¶139

¶140

KI-.1 Crl.P. No 152 of2020 & batch

¶141

is, and^{whichhe knows or has reasonto believe to be,} likely to spread the^{infectionof anydisease dangerous to} tife, shall be punished^{with imprisonment of either description} for a term which may^{cxtend to two years,or with fine, or with} both."

¶142

,.271. Disobedience to quarantine rule.-Whoevcr knowingly disobeys^{any rulemade andpromulgatedby the Govemment} for putting any^{vessel into a state ofquarantine,or for} regulating the intercourse^{of vesselsin a stateof quarantinewith} the shore or with other^{vessels,or for regulating the intercourse} between places whorc^{an inlcctious diseaseprevails} and other places, shall be^{punishedwith imprisonmcntof either descnption} for a term which^{mayextendto six months,or withfine,} or with both."

¶143

.'272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.Whoever^{adulterates any article of food or drink, so as} to make such article^{noxious as food or drink,intending to} sell such article as^{food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the} same will be^{sold as food or drink, shall be punished} with imprisonment^{of eitherdescription for a term whichmay} extend to six months,^{or with fine which may extendto one thousand} mpees, or^{with both."}

¶144

,,273. Sale of noxious food or drink.-Whoever sells, or offers or exposes^{forsale,as food or drink, any article which has} been rendered^{or hasbecome noxious, or is in a stateunfit} for food or drink, knowing^{or having reasonto believe thatthe same is} noxious as food^{or drink, shall be punishedwithimprisonment} of either description^{for a termwhichmay extend to six months,} or with fine^{which mayextendto one thousand rupees,} or with both."

¶145

"328. Causing^{hurtby meansof poison, etc.,} with intent to commit an^{offence.-Whoeveradministers to or causes} to be taken by^{any personany poison or any sh,rpefuing,} intoxicating or unwholesome^{drug,or other thing withintent to cause} hurt to

¶146

¶147

KL,J (r t \o.)52 of2020 &batch

¶148

either description for^{a termwhich may extend to te t years, and} shall also^be liable^to fine."

¶149

"336. r\ct endangering life or^personal safetl' of others.Whocver does any act so rashly or negligently as t^cndanger human lile or the^personal safcty of^{others, shall 1,r punished} with imprisonment of either description for a tcmr^r hich^ntay extend to^three months, or^with fine^which may^{ex r nd to two} hundred^and fifty^rupees,or with both."

¶150

"420.^(lheating and dishoncstl) inducing dc iverr of properh,.--Whoever cheats and thereby^dishones'l r^induces the pcrson^deceived to deliver^{any property} to^{any pi son,} or^to make, alter or destroy the wholc or any^part of i^valuable security, or anything which is signed or^sealed,at r^{rvhich is} capable ol being converted into a^valuable secuntl shall^be punished rvith imprisonment of either description I r a term which rnay extend to sevcn ycars, and shall also l,t liablc to hne."

¶151

"34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance r,l common intcntion.--W1ren a criminal act is^done by several^ersons in furtherance of^the common inte ntion of all,^eacli of sr^{r h persons} is liablc lirr that act in the same manner as if it $'er rlonc by him alonc."

¶152

"51 l.^Punishment for attempting to commit o ffen ces punishable Mth imprisonment for life r ' other oll'ence imprisonment.-Whoever attempts to commit i^r punishable by this Code with imprisonment fi,; lifc or imprisonrnent, or to cause such an^offence to be conrrr tted. and in such attempt does any act towards the cornmiss i ,n of thc offence, slrall,^where no express provision is made hr his^(lode for the punishment of such attempt, be^{puni ;l} cd rvith imprisonment of any description^provided for the off: rcc, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisorun: rt lor life or, as thc casc may be, one-half of the^longest term o1' mprison-

¶153

¶154

KL.J Crl.P. No.l 52 of2020 & batch

¶155

RELEVANT PROVTSIONS UNDER COTP ACT

¶156

..5. prohibition of advertiscment of cigarettes and other tobacco products.{1) No^person engaged in, or purported to be engaged in^{the production,} supply or distribution ofcigarettes or any other tobacco^products shall advertise and no person having control over^{a medium} shall cause to be advertised cigarettes or any other tobacco products through that medium and no person shall take^part in any advertisement which directly or indirectly^suggests or promotes the use or consumption of cigarcttes or any other tobacco products.

¶157

(2) No person, fbr any dircct or indirect pecuniary benefit. shall

¶158

(a) display, cause to display, or permit or authorise to display any advertisement ofcigarettes or any other tobacco product; or

¶159

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

¶160

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

¶161

(d) erect, exhibit, fix or retain upon or over any land, building, wall, hoarding, frame,^post or struchlre or upon or in any vehicG or shall display in any manner whatsoever in any piace any advertisement ofcigarettes or^any other tobacco produit:

¶162

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

¶163

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

¶164

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

¶165

(3) No person, shall, under a contract or otherwise promote or agree to promote the use^{or consumption} of

¶166

(a) cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or

¶167

(b) any trade mark or brand name of cigarettes or any other tobacco product in exchangc lor a sponsorship, gift, prize or scholarship given or agteed to be given by another person."

¶168

¶169

KL,J C,l.t No.l.i2 of2020 & bttch

¶170

on their label, the specified waming and the nicot r e and tar contents, shall in the case of first corrviction be puni J able with imprisonrnent for a term which may extend to two yc r s, or with fine which may extend to fir,e thousand rupees, or''ith both, and for the second or subsequent conviction, with im r isonment for a tem which may extend to five years and with I nc which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

¶171

(2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettos r tobacco products which do not contain either on the paokage c^- on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tirr contents shall in the case of first conviction be punisl i^.rlc rvith imprisonmcnt for a tcrm, which may extcnd to one vrl , or rvith fine wl.rrch may extend to one thousand rupees, or r. ith both, and, for the second or subsequent convict t n, rvith imprisonment for a term which may extcnd to trr,o cars and with fine which may exteod to three thousand rupees.'

¶172

"7. Restrictions on trade and commercc in, and prr duction, supply and distribution of cigarettes and othe,' tobacco products.-

¶173

(l) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, : rpply or distributc 6 cigarettes or any other tobacco produr s unless every package of cigarettes or any othcr tobaccr, rroducts produced, supplied or distributed by him bcars thereor . or on its label such specified waming including a pictorial rr i ning as may be prescribed.

¶174

(2) No pcrson shall carry on trade or commerce in cir i rottes or any other tobacco products unless every package of ciilr rettcs or any other tobacco products sold, supplied or distributi r by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified waming.

¶175

(3) No person shall import cigarettes or any othe tobacco products fbr distnbution or supply for a valuable con; lcraLion or for sale in India unless every package of cigarett: or any other tobacco products so imported by him bears thertr r, or on its label, the specified waming.

¶176

¶177

KL,J Crl.P No I 52 of 2D0 & batch

¶178

tobacco products have been packed for distribution, salc or supply for a valuablc consideration.

¶179

(5) No person shall, directly or induectly, produce, supply or distribute cigarettes or any other tobacco^products unless^every packagc of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him indicates^thereon, or on its^label, the nicotine and tar contents on each cigarette or as^{the casemay} be on other tobacco products along with the maximum permissible limits thereof: Provided that the nicotine and tar contents shall not exceed the maximum permissible^quantity thereof as may be prescribed by rules made under^this Act."

¶180

RELEVA NT PROVISIONS UNDER F.S.S. Act:

¶181

"58.^{Penaltyfor contraventionsfor whichno specificpenalty} is provided.-Whoever contravenes any^provisions of this Act^or the rules or regulations made^thercunder, for the^{contravention} of which no penalty has been separately^provided in^this Chapter, shall be liable to a penalty which may^extend to^two lakh rupees."

¶182

"59. Punishment for unsafc food.-Any person who, whether by himself or by any other^person on his behalf,^manufachrres for sale or stores or sells or distributes or^{importsany articleof} food for human consumption *'hich is unsafe,^{shall be} punishable,-

¶183

(i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may^extend to six^months and also with frne which may extend^{to one lakh rupees;}

¶184

(ii) where such failure or contravention results in a non-grievous injury, with imprisonment for^a term^which may^{extendto one} year and also with fine which may extend to three lakh^rupees;

¶185

(iii) where such failure or contravention results in a^grievous injury, with imprisonment for a tcrm^which may^{extendto six} years and also with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees;

¶186

(iv) where such failure or contravention results in death- with

¶187

KL,J ( ,' -'o I i) o[:t):t) .1 butch

¶188

RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER E.D. ACT

¶189

"3. Penalty. Any person disobeying any regulat;c r or ordcr made under this Act shall be deemed to have cor rmitted an offence punishable under section 188 of the Indran enal Code (as of 1860 )."

¶190

RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER D.M. ACT:

¶191

"51. Punishmcnt for obstruction, etc.-

¶192

(l) Whoever, rvithout reasonable cause- (l) Whoe., r, without reasonable cause-^i'

¶193

(a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central ( i rvenrment or the State Covemment, or a person authorised bv th: National Authority or State Authority or District Autho i r in the discharge of his funcrions under rhis Act; or

¶194

(b) refuses to comply with any direction given b_v or on behalf of the Central Govemment or the State Governn t rt or thc National Executive Committee or thc State lxecutive Comrnittce or the District Authority under this Ar t shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a re m r.vhicli may extend to one year or with fine, or with both. ru d if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions resulr. in loss oi. lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conv ctioll be punishable with imprisonment for a term which mir\ lxtend to two years. notes on clauses Clauses 5l to 5g 1seci. ;l to SS) seeks to lay down what will constitute an ofloncc ir terms of obstruction of the functions under the Act, false clain br reiicf, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuanr:t of false waming, failure of an officer to perform the duty irn rosed on him under the Act without due permission or lawi'ul e :cuse. or his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide for penalties for these offenc,:r .,'

¶195

The /rs involved in the present petitions i ; no rnore res

¶196

integro- A learned Single Judge of the High courr c I Judicature at

¶197

Hyderabad lor the State ofTelangana and the State ol z ndhra pradesh

¶198

in chidurala Shyamsubder v. state of reranganaa rr Ld an occasion to deal with the issues involved in the present crirr inar petitions. After referring ro various provisions of Ipc, FSS Act, rrorp Act ancl

¶199

¶200

¶201

KL,J Crl P. No.l52 o12020^&.botch

¶202

in several^{judgments, the learned SingleJudge had framed the issues'}

¶203

which^{areas under:}

¶204

,'l) Whether the respondenU^{Sub-[nspector of Police' is competent to}

¶205

. investigate^{into the oflencepunishable under Sections 54 and 59(l) of} FSS^Act?

¶206

2)^{Whetherthe petitioners in att the petitions are found committingany} act^{with maiicious intention'with knowledge and reasonto believe that} such^{actliketyto spreadthe infectionof anydiscasedangerous to life?} And^{whether the petitionerssclling or offering or exposing for saleas} food^{or drink, any articlewhich has been rendered or has become} noxious^{or is in a stateunfit for food or drink or rcason to believe that} thesameisnoxiousasfoodordrink?Ifso'arctheyliabletobe proceeded^{for the offcnccpunishableunderSections27O and 273} IPC.?,,

¶207

9.^{After an elaboratediscussion and on considerationof} various^{aspects, the learnedSingle Judge has held that the police} cannot^{takecognizance of the offence'to investigateinto and flle} charge^{sheet against the accusedthereinfor the oflencepunishable} underSections-54and59(1)ofFSSAct,aStheywerenot empowered^{under the said Act to launchthe prosecution'but only} FoodSafefyofficerappointedbytheGovemmentaloneiscompetent tolaunchprosecutionforthosetwooffences.withthesaidfindings, the learned^{SingleJudgehas quashedthe proceedings wherethe} offencesareunderSections-54and5gofFsSActinitiatedbythe

¶208

police'

¶209

t 0. In the^{very sameiudsment. the leamedSinele Judse further}

¶210

KL,J ( i ':\lt t5lot20t0&batch

¶211

exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is governed bv re provisions of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the provis ons of IpC. The respondents - police are incompetent to investic rte the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) ol-rr: FSS Act and allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the sr rlements do not disclose the commission of the offence punishabre ur r er Section - 273 ol IPC since transportation of noxious food is noL included under Section - 273 of IpC. The act done by the accrr cd therein i.e.. transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco thouc r dangerous to human life, it would not spread or infect or causc tny disease on accouut of transpoftation and if those products art consurned by human being, it would certainly cause damage o the health. Therelbre, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacc r by itself is not an olfence under Section - 210 of IpC. pan Masala ir nor a tobacco product to fall within the purview of corp Act. rherefore, the provisions of the COTp Act have no application, therr ry registration of crime on the ground of violation of Sections _ 7 (1 2) 13) (5) and Section -26 of COTp Act is an illegality. The leamcr Single Judge further held that registration of cases for the offence , rder Section _ 20 (2) readwithT (2) of COTp Act is illegal. With th: said findings, the learned Single Judge has quashed the crimes and czrl rndar cases in the said judgment.

i Effit-__

KL,J Crl.P. No 1 52 o/ 2020 & hotch

¶216

1 1. In Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasadhi Tripati Rao

¶217

v. The State of Andhra Pradeshs, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravti had also an occasion to deal with the said issue. After referring to the contentions of the respective parties therein, various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and relying on the principle laid down in Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia3, Joseph Kurian v. State of Kerala6, Sayyed flassan Sayyed Subhanr, M/s. Pepsico India Holdings^(Pvt) Ltd., v. State o[ U.P.7, Sanjay Anjay Stores v. Union of India8, Boop Singh Tyagi v. Statee, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalr0 and Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the learned Single Judge has^quashed the FIRs / Calendar Cases. The learned Single Judge referring to the^{law laid} down in Chidurala Shyamsubdero 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.

¶218

i) Referring to the provisions of Sections - 153, 188, 269,270, 271,272,273,284,328,353 of IPC, the leamed Judge in Sri Jaganath Enterprisess held that the offences^{registered under the} said Sections are not maintainable. It^{furtherheld that the provisions} of the COTP Act can only^{be pressed into} service in^{the limited}

¶219

ffiii+.'.

¶220

¶221

KL.J C t^D No.l5) of2020 & batch

¶222

cr rcumstances only where there is violatio r of Sections

¶223

4, 5,6,7 and t0 of the COTP Act. By referring ro he principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lalro and M/ . pepsico India Iloldings (Pvt) Ltd.7, the leamed Single Judge ras quashed the proccedings in various crimes / calendar cases.

¶224

[2. Another learned Single Judge of the Hig] lourt of Andhra Pradcsh at Amaravati in V. Nageswara Rao v. li ate of Andhra Pradeshrr had also an occasion to deal with the saic ssue and agrecd ',vith^{the principle laid} down in Chidurala Shyamsub lera.

¶225

In Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr, the ,\ tex Court while dealing with lceality of the order passed by the Bomt,r y High Court in a batch ol crirninal writ petitions and criminal ap, ications, which were filed challenging the registration olFIRs for thr offences under Sections - 188,272,213 and 328 of IpC and Secrion - 26 and 30 of the FSS Act where there is an allegation of transpofla ion and sale of Gutka / Pan Masala etc., held that the judgment cf Bombay High Court is contrary to the provisions of the Act and law aid down by it. With the said finding, the Apex Court remitted thr matter to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration on the is; Le that whether the aforesaid offences are made out in the FIRs, rvt ch are subject matter of the cases pending before the Bombay High (,r urt.

¶226

¶227

KL.J Crl.P. No.l52 of2020 & barch

¶228

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 cases are transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. In Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the learned Singte observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section - 270 ol 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:

¶229

"....The act done by the petitioners i.e., transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco though dangerous to human life, it would not spread or infect or cause any disease on account of transportation and if those products are consumed by human being, it would certainly cause damage to the health. Therefore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco is not by itself is not an offence under Section - 270 of IPC and it would fall within Section 270 of IPC."

¶230

Section - 272 of IPC makes punishable an offence by a person, who adulterates any article of food or drink. Therefore, the

¶231

said section would only come into play if food or drink is adulterated.

¶232

¶233

KL'J Crt.P I r^{152 of 2020 & barch}

¶234

(a) of the FSS Act^{dealswith 'adulterant'which me lns a material} whichcouldmakethe.food'unsafeorsub-standardc:mis-branded. Accorcling^{to Section- 212 of IPC, if a material is u; rd to makethe} food unsafe/sub-standard^{or mis-branded, thenonlythe offencewould} be attracted'^{Whereas, aS discussedsupra, the al egationin the} present batch of^{cases is with regard to transportalirn' possession'} storage,^{sale and purchase of bannedproducts viz'' tol rcco / tambaku} / gutka /^{khaini Izatda / pan masala etc', respectirt ly'Therelore'} according to^{this Court. the said allegation does not lall within the} ambit of^{Section- 272 ol IPC. Therefore, I agreeu i 'h the principle} laid down by^{the learned SingleJudges of the High ( ourt of Andhra} Pradesh in Chidurala^{Shyamsubdero,Sri Jagana I r Enterprisess} and V.^{NagesrvaraRaot l.}

¶235

l6.InJosephKurian6,theHon'blesuprem':CotLrtheldthat for Section^{- 272IPCto be attracted,the followingsl luld be present'} ( l ) That the article^{involved was food and drin : meant to be} consumed by^{live persons; (2) that the accused adulr ratedit and the} adulteration^{rendered it noxious as a 'food or drir <'; (3) that the} accusedknewatthetinreofadulterationthatheu,orL-]sellthearticle as food or^{drinkand knew thatsucharticlecannot ttsoldas food or} drink. The^{Hon'bleSupreme Court ctearlyheldthi t the offenceis}

¶236

completed^{on the introductionof the adulterant' 'lr' lulterant'would}

¶237

¶238

KL.J Crl.P. No 152 of2020 & batch

¶239

drink and what is stated to be mixed in it is not clearly established by any cogent material as an 'adulterant' for the offence under Section _ 272 IPC to be pressed into service.

¶240

As far as Section - 328 of IPC is concemed, in the same judgment it was held as follows:

¶241

"10. In order to prove offence under Section 328 the prosecution is required to prove that the substance in question was a poison, or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug etc, that the accused administcred the substance to the complainant or caused the complainant to take such substance, that he did so with intent to cause hurt or knowing it to be likely l9 that he would thereby cause hurt, or with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence. It is, therefore, essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused was directly responsible for administering poison etc. or causing it to be taken by any person, through another.... . .."

¶242

Tobacco does not fit into this definition.

¶243

Section - 273 of IPC deals with sale of a noxious food or drink, and as per which, whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or 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 unfit for "food or drink". Thus, the said section

¶244

would apply, when an article which has become noxious or which has

¶245

¶246

KL,J Cr No.l52 of2020 & batch

¶247

IPC or in FSS Act. As per the dictionary meaning, t.r : word 'noxious' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As tated above, the allegation in the entire batch of present criminal retitions is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale .nd purchase of banned products vr., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / klLi ini I zarda Ipan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according t,r this Cour1, the contents of the cornplaint/charge sheet lacks the ingr,: lients of Section - 273 of IPC.

¶248

As laras section - 188 IPC is concemed. i s per the settled law on the subject, belore an accused is charged, tl-:re must be; an order duly promulgated by the public servant; the put lic servant must have the lawful authority to promulgate the order; the person flouting the same should have knowledge about the order ( irecting him to abstain from the act; he must disobey the said trder with the knowledge; and such disobedience of the duly prc mulgated order should cause a danger to the human life etc. In Boop Singh Tyagie a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that ri5:l t to promulgate the ordinance/order is also an issue which is beinp raised, because under the FSS Act, the Commissioner of Food Safe t r alone has the authority to pass the orders only if the article of '1c od' can causes danger or is injurious to health.

¶249

t,/

¶250

¶251

KL,J Ctt.P. No.l52 o12020^{& bdtch}

¶252

20- In^{N.T. Rama Rao v' The State of A.P', rep. by Public}

¶253

prosecutorl2 while dealing with the offences^{under Sections- 188} and^{283 of IPC, the leamed SingleJudge of the combinedHigh Court} of Andhra^{Pradeshheid as under:}

¶254

"5) Even if the allegation^{that the petitioner} conducted^{publicmeetings at tlree road junctions} contrary to the^{permissionaccordedfor conducting} of a public^{meeting only at one specified place is} true, such a direction^{under Section 30 of the} Police Act, 1861^{could have been given only by} the Superintendent or^{the Assistant Superintendent} of Potice of the^{District but not by any of their} subordinates. If such a^{permission is granted} under Section 30 of the^{PoliceAct,I 861 andis} violated, Section 195^{(1) (a)} of^{Codeof Criminal} Procedure mandates^{that the complaint in this} regard has to be made by^{the public servant} concemed or some^{other personto whomsuch a} public servant is administratively subordinate^to enable any Court to take^{cognizance of an offence} under Section 188 ofCode^{of Criminal Procedure.} In the present case, the^{chargesheet was frledby} the Sub lnspector of^{Police,who could nothave} been the authority to^{grantpermission for the} public meeting and therefore,^{the complaint/charge} sheet is in^violation of^{the mandatoryprovisionof} Section 195(1)(a)^{of Codeof CriminalProcedure.}

¶255

That apart,^{the offence alleged to have been} committed under^{Section283 of the Indian Penal}

¶256

Code hv the netifioners and others is ohviouslv^it!

¶257

¶258

c,1.?. No.t52 of)02A A f*f,

¶259

independent ol the same. Even ot6: wise, the conduct of public rneeting at three roa ijunctions or obstruction to the traffic could not I ave been considered as causing any danger or ilU! y to any person. In so lar as the obstruction in rrr y,public way is concemed. which can also be c,).ered by Section 2gl of the Indian penal Code, r I , charge sheet cites only one u.itness to speak .,, ()ul the traffic jam caused by the road show. Bu , when the conduct of the public meeting at learl ;rt one I)lace has been pcrnrittcrJ and it the gatil(.r ng lor that puhlic nreeting resulted in any incortrr nience by way of obstructing the traffic, the sarnr ;annot be colsidered to be rvith necessary guilty. n,r ts rca to construe the existence ol an oflence puni hablc under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none ol the olfences alleged c rn be said to have any reasonable basis and in an1 ,iew, the complaint/charge shect being in viojatrr n o1. Section 195 (l) (a) of Cods of Criminal procr:, ure, has to fail.

¶260

As the cornplaint has lailed due rr. its unsustaina bility, the proceedings in their enli ety have to fail, though the 1., accused al ,rre approached this Court by way of this Crin iral Petition.,,

¶261

In Thota Chandra Sekhar v The Starr of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., p.S. Eluru Rural, Wr,r t Godavari Districtrr, wherein by relying on various judgments irrr luding N.T. Rama Raor2 and also the guidelines Iaid down by the ,n I ,ex Clourt in

,!,1?.'-:

KL,J Crl.P. No.l52 of )020 & batch

¶266

where there is an express legal bar en$afted in any ofthe provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings andlor 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 power under Section _ 4g2 of Cr.p.C. It was also further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technicai defect of obtaining prior permission under Section _ 155 (2)of Cr.p.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purporr of Section _ 195 (l) (a) of Cr.p.C.

¶267

Vide Norifi cation No.50 t/F SS_t /2020, dated 06.01.2020, the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana Directorate of Institute of Preventive Medicine, public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, restricted the manufacture, storage, distribution, transporlation and sale of gutka / pan masala, which contains tobacco and nicotine, as ingredients and chewing tobacco products. tike chap tobacco, pure tobacco, khaini, kharra, scented tobacco / flavoured tobacco or by whatever name locally it is called packed in sachets / pouches I package in the entire Stage of Telangana under FSS Act,2006. It is for one year. Vide Notification No.505/FSS-1 /2021, dated 06.01.2021, the same was extended for one

¶268

¶269

(:r . . No.l 52 of 2020 & batch

¶270

Notifications before this Court as well^{as the Hon'blt} Supreme Court. A Division Bench of this Court declined^{to ellte} lain some writ petitions on the ground that the Hon'ble^SupremeCc urt seized of the said issue. It is also relevant to note^{that the Hon'b['} Supreme Court remanded back the matter to this Court.^Therefore,sr ch a notification can only be issued for emergency situations^{and frr} prohibiting the distribution and sale of any arlicle ofa^loodcanno. be lost sight of. Therefore,, in view of the law taid^{down in thea} rovc^judgments including the judgments in Chidurala^Shyamsubdt'r {, Sri Jaganath 1^{to this Courl,} Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raol^{t.Accord in} Section - 188 of IPC will not attract to^{the allegation} leveled against the petitioners herein in this batch of criminal^petitiorL:

¶271

As far as Section - 328 of^{IPC is concenr:d,it deals with} causing hurt by means of poison, etc.,^{with intert to commitan} offence. As per the said provision, whoever^{admini ; ers to or causes} to be taken by any person any poison or^{any stupef)'ng,intoxicating} or unwholesome drug, or other thing with^{intentto ca rse hurt} to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the cc mmission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereb)^)ause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description f rr a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liabie to 1ne. Therefore, there should be administering poison, intoxicating^etc ,^{with intent} to

¶272

¶273

KL,J Crt.P. No.l52 of2020 & batch

¶274

thereby cause hurt. As stated^{above,the allegations in the entire batch} of criminal petitions are^{lacking. Therefore,according to this Court,} the contents of the complaints^{/ charge sheetslacks the ingredients of} Section - 328 of IPC.

¶275

Asfar as Section^{- 336 of IPC is concerned,it deals with an} act endangering lile or^{personalsaletyof others,and as per which,} whoever does any act so^{rashly or negligentlyas to endanger human} life or the personal safety^{of others, shall be punished with impris-} onment of either description^{tbr a term which may extend to three} months, or with fine which^{may extend to two hundredand fifty} mpees, or with both. In^{the complaints / charge sheets, there is no} such allegation of rash^{and negligent act whichendangershuman life} or personal safety of others.^{Therefore, according to this Court,the} contents of the complaints^{/ charge sheets lacks the ingredientsof} Section - 336 of IPC.

¶276

As far as Section^{- 420 ol [PC is concerned, it dealswith} Cheating and dishonestly^{inducingdelivery of property' Thereis no} such inducement either^{at the inceptionor at a later stage' Thus,the} contents of complaints I^{chargesheet lack the ingredientsof Section -} 420 of lPC.

¶277

As far as Section^{- 269 of IPC is concerned, it dealswith}

¶278

KL,J Crl.P.^{No. - 1 of2020& batch}

¶279

which^{is, and whichhe knows or has reasonto believe to :e' likely to} spread^{the infectionof any diseasedangerous to life' shall be punished} with^{irnprisonmentof either description for a term whicrmay extend} to six^{months,or with fine, or with both' But' a pt rusal of the} contents^{of complaints Ichatge sheets in the present ba ch of cases'} such^{ingredientsare lackingand' therefore' Section - 269 of IPC does} not^{arise in the present batch of cases'}

¶280

In^{view of the above said discussion'acc( rding to this} Couft,^{transportation,possession'storage' sale and purchase of} tobacco^{productsare not totally banned in the State of 1 elanganaand} also^{in the Country' Therefore'it cannot be said that j :ctions - 269'} 270,271,2'72^{and 2'73, 328'336 and 420 of IPC are r tractedto the} cases^{in this batch'}

¶281

As^{far as the offences under FSS Act i: concemed'as} already^{discussed above, in Chidurata Shyamsubdr:4' the leamed} Single^{Judgefollowing the guidelines laiddown b'the Hon'ble} Supreme^{Courtin Bhajan Lalro held that the police r e incompetent} to take^{cognizanceof the offencespunishable underSe :tions - 54 and} 59^{(1) of the FSS Act, investigatinginto the offencesI ong with other} offences^{under the provisions of the IPC' It was li rlher held that} hling^{charge sheet is a grave illegality' as the Foo'lSafety Officer} , .-rr ^--,: - ^ t}'o

¶282

¶283

KL-.1 Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 & batch

¶284

under Sections - 188, 270 and273 of IPC. Therefore, in the present batch ofcases, entertaining the complaints / hling the charge sheets by the police is contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera

¶285

With regard to the offences under COTp Act, it is relevant to mention 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 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 dehne tobacco products. pan masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the definition oftobacco 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

¶286

tobacco products, and no person shall be a part ofany advertisement

¶287

¶288

K Ct^| '.^No.I 52 of 2020 & batch

¶289

every package of cigarette or tobacco^{product co I ains a specified} warning (pictoriat or otherwise). Section^{- 4 of thi IOTP Act, bans} smoking in public places. In addition, Section^{- 6 :the COTP Act,} prohibits the sale of cigarettes or other tobacco^{prc( ucts to a person} who is under the age of 18 years are in an^{area wlt rin 100 yards of} any educational institution.

¶290

3t. A reading of this Act, particularly^Secttor s-4,5,6and1 'ohibition on thc clcarly shows that there is no general ban or^{general :} manufacture/sale of tobacco products. 22 What^{is bar} ed is merely the sale of these products to a person, who is^belowth: age of 18 years nstitution. The and in an area within 100 yards of an educational other aspects covered by Sections - 5 and^{7 of the} lOl'P Act, deal with the adverlisement and the warning, which^{is to I} : contained on a package, in which the tobacco product is packed'^{'I't i} i is a regulatory mechanism only. Therefore, according to^{this Coutt} the above said allegations of transporlation, possession, storage,^sali: rnd purchase of banned tobacco products will not attract the^offencer nder Section -7 of the COTP Act

¶291

As far as Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Ac^{s concen.red,as} stated above, the allegations against the petttton: tn respective complaints / charge sheets are that they were transporl^{ng, possessing,}

¶292

ccllina a-n h,,-^t ^-;-^ +1,^ l,o-nad tohacco troducts to the

¶293

¶294

KL,J Crl.P. |ro.l52 of2020 &batch

¶295

-: "*T

¶296

¶297

for better appreciation ofthe case and to decide the issue in question,

¶298

and the same is as under:

¶299

"20. Punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. (t)...

¶300

(2) Ary person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the spccificd waming and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the case ol first conviction be punishable with imprisonmcnt for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine r'vhich may extend to three thousand rupees."

¶301

Thus, Section - 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for

¶302

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 ln contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified waming on the said products. In view of the same, the contents of the complaints I charge sheets lack the ingredients of Section - 20⁽²⁾ of the COTP Act. Even, there is no allegation that the seized^products do not contain labels with statutory waming. Thus, registering the crimes for the said offence against the petitioners is not only contrary to Section - 20 (2) of COTP Act, but also contrary to the^{principle laid}

¶303

down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera.^{In view} of the same,^{the offence}

¶304

K Ol) \o.l^j) oj)D0 & batch

¶305

principle laid down by the leamed Single Judges of t I^I High^Coufi of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder4, Sri^Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raoll.

¶306

For the foregoing discussion and the authc^{r tative principle} of law, Criminal Petition Nos. 3768, 3819,4046,40'7,^{4098, 4099,} 4t00, 4102, 4141, 4151,⁴¹⁵⁷ , 4182, 4187, 4241,^{4',). t9, 4251, 4258,} 4262, 4277, 4405, 4415, 4542, 4615, 4640, 4681,, 721,^{47'75 and} 4825 of 2021 are allowed^quashing the^proceed r gs against^the petitioners therein in the respective crimes mentionc, therein. Since the proceedings in the aforesaid Criminal Petitic r s are^quashed against the respective petitioners, the respective Station House Ofhcers / Investigating Officers are hereby directr: I to retum^the seized properly / vehicles on proper identification art verification of ownership under due acknowledgment.

¶307

Further, Criminal Petition Nos. 152, 153,^;5, 162 & 5826 of 2020,3498, 3500, 3509, 3514, 4070, 4110, 411), 4140, 4178, 4194, 4216, 4230, 4361, 4612, 4622 atd 4632 o'.2021 are also allowed quashing the proceedings against the petition: s therein in the respective Calendar Cases mentioned therein. Since he proceedings are quashed, the respective petitioners are at liberty to hle appropriate applications before the concerned Magistrate for retr.r n of the seized properry / vehicle and the Magistrate shall consic t r the same in

¶308

_- lr]ltl*:. E:?-!+* -.:,---

¶309

¶310

KL.J Crl.P. No.l52 of2020 & batch

¶311

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all the

¶312

Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.

¶313

osrH JULY, 2o2l

¶314