Allowed

Syed. Wahed, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Feb 2026CRLP/1204/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash proceedings against a pan shop seller charged with selling prohibited cigarettes; the State did not oppose, and following a prior coordinate-bench order quashing similar cases, the High Court quashed proceedings and directed return of seized property.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.3470 of 2025 quashed; SHO/IO directed to return seized property on identification and verification.

Syed. Wahed, Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION N O: 12O4 OF 2026

¶7

Between

¶8

Syed. Wahed, S/o Syed Gafoor, age. 24 yrs, Occ. pan shop business, Rlo #17_ 1-305121. near Harmain function Hall at Water tank, Santosh nagar, Hyd.

¶9

...Petitioners/Accused No.2...

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶12

Sri. P. Shankar, Addl-lnpsector of Police, pS Chand raya ng utta, Hyd. .. ..

¶13

... Res pondents/Defacto-Com pla inant

¶14

Petition under section 528 of the BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to QUASH CC No. 347012025 of FlR. No.77l20i7, p S Chandrayanagutta, under section 420 ipc, sec.S, 6 (a),7, rlw 20(2),22 and 24(1) of cigarette and other tobacco product (P,A & RTCPSD) act-2003, tN THE COURT OF CHTEF IVETROPOLTTAN lt/AGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD against the petitioners.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶16

Petition under section 528 of the BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to srAY of all further proceedings in cc No. 347012025 of FlR. No 77l2o1t, p s Chandrayanagutta, under section 420 ipc, sec.5, 6 (a), 7, rtw 2O(2),22 and 24(1) of cigarette and other tobacco product (P A & RTCPSD) act-2003, IN THE COURT OF cHIEF NIETROPOLITAN tvAGlsrRATE AT HYDERABAD against the petrtioners pending disposal of the above quash petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Nlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri lVlohd Abdullah Khan, learned counsel representing sri Mohd. Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri lrl Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1-State and None appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

IN THE HIGT{ COURT FOR TH E STATE OF T] LANGANA AT HYDE RABAD

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREEN] AS RAO CRIMINAL PETITTON No.1204 of 20ll ,

Date: 03.02.2026

Between:

Syed Wahed

...Petitionerla :cused No.2

¶25

AND

¶26

The State ofTelangana, Represented by its^pubtic prosecutor. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and another

¶27

-cspondents

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This Criminal^petition has been filed seeking t, , quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3470 of 2025 pending on the f te of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arayed as accused No.2 for the offences punis,t rble under Section 420 of the Indian penal Code, lg60 (for shor IPC') and Sections 5,6(4), 7 read with Sections 2O(2),22 and,.t, f(.1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco products Act, 2003 (for short 'COTP Act'). \ \

¶30

¶31

¶32

Heard Mr. Mohd. Abdullah Khan, leamed counsel representing Mr. Mohd. Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Rarnachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1-State.

¶33

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.5577 of 2023, dated 08.08.2024

¶34

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶35

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the 1n respective parties and the order passed by this Court Crl.P.No.5577 of 2023, dated 08.08.2024, this criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.3470 of 2025 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Furlher the Station House Officer/lnvestigating Officer is hereby

¶36

¶37

directed to rcturn the seized propedy on proper ider ification and

¶38

verification under due acknowledgment.

¶39

Pending miscellaneous applications, if an.r shall stand

¶40

closed.

¶41

SD/- AHMET ABDULLA KHAN ASSISi ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

t,_)-

S ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chief lvletropolitan Magistrate At Hyderabad.

¶47

The Chief f/etropolitan [/agistrate, Nampally.

¶48

The Station House Officer, Ch a ndrayanag utta Police District,

¶49

One CC to Sri N4ohd Fasiuddin, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

Two CD Copies

¶51

{ tation, Hyderabad

GNK/PSL

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0310212026

ORDER

( oR[. S lq
I
to
t? ?tt)FZ
*
.Sp,ieHrp

¶58

CRLP.No.1204 ot 2026

¶59

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶60

(9 *(.1'6

¶61

¶62

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶63

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5577 of 2023

¶64

ORDER:

¶65

This Criminai petition is filed under Sectio n 4g2 of the Code of Criminal procedure, L9Z3 (for short ,Cr.p.C. ) by the petitioner/accused No.11, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. No.67O of 2018 on the fiie of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Section 42O of the Indian Penal Code, 1g60 (for short ,IpC,) and Sections 5, 6(A), Z read with 2O(2), 22, 24(1) of Cigarette and Other Tobacco product Act, 2OO3 (for short ,COTPA,).

¶66

Brief facts of the case are that on 31 .O3.2O17 , Chandrayanagutta, p.S., conducted a search on a number of pan shops and found that the pan shop owners are selling cigarettes which are prohibited under COTpA. Therefore, a case was registered against eleven (11) persons in Crime No.77 of 2O l7 before the Chandrayangutta police. In the said charge sheet, it was alleged that accused Nos. I to 7 used to purchase cigarettes etc., from accused Nos.g

¶67

¶68

to 11 and after completion^{of investigation, a ct arge sheet} was Iiled vide C.C.No.67O^{of 2018 on the fi :of Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate at^{Nampally, Hyderabal}

¶69

Heard Sri S.Chandrasekhar,^{learnedcour se1 for the} petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh, learned^{Assist rntPublic} Prosecutor for respondent^No.1 -^State-

¶70

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner woulcl :} ubmit that this petitioner is innocent and^{he never solcli} n1'thing to accused Nos. 1 to 7 and he is not selling^{an y} prohibited products and the said seized products are^nt1 prohibited products. He further submitted that said rermissible tobacco items are not harmful to the^healtlr of general public and the said crime does not comes under the purview of offences alleged. In this regard, he placed reliance on the^judgment of this Court in^{Crirr i} ral Petition No.5619 of 2O2O and batch dated^10.06.20i2 ), Criminal Petition No. 10073 of 2022 dated 19.12.202'2 rnd prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by^{c r} Lashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶71

I t 1 I i l !

¶72

,/.,

¶73

On the other hand,^{learned Assistant Public} Prosecutor opposed^{the submisslons of learned counsel for} the petitioner stating^{that the allegations against this} petitioners are severe^{in nature and the products sold by} the petitioner^{are in low quaiity and the petitionerselling} the products without^{statutory warning marked on it'} Hence, he^{prayed the Court todismiss the Criminal} Pe l itio n.

¶74

In view of^{the rival submissions made by both the} parties, this Court^{has perused the recordand found that} as per the^{prosecution, the cigarette products are low} quality. It is stated that^{petitioner/accused No' 11 is no way} concerned with^{the offences aileged as accusedNos'1 to 7} illegally kept the^{HokkaPots, electric cigarettes in flavored} powders for selling them^{at high rates through accused} Nos. B to 11.^{Accused Nos. 8 to 11 are the main kingpins to} circulate the^{low quality prohibited productsto the accused} persons.

¶75

¶76

In Criminal Petition No.5619 of^{2O2Oancl l'atch dated}

¶77

1O.06.2022, at paragraph Nos.7 to^{11 held as L r tder:-}

¶78

In relotion to ofJences under Sections^- 20^(2). '⁽³⁾ and 7(5) this court in Mohd. Jameel Ahmed^(Suprc )^l'tad held as follotrs:

¶79

With regard to the offences under^COTP Act IT IS releuant to mention the objects and the reosons^)- the said Act itself clearlg state that the act is^me(.i tto prohibit the aduertisement of, and to prouide .fi,t the regulation of trade and commerce in, and^prodl.r ion, TCCO supplg and distibution of, cigarettes and other^taL or products and for matters connected thereul't incidental thereto. A reading of the soid objects⁾ tlrc said Act u.tould reueal thot a total bon of^toL acco products u)as not enuisaged bg the said Ac.t tne Parliament merelg felt it expedient to con.tr(^L the ad"uertisement and sale of tobacco products. A:;^t tted earlier in the order, Section 3 (p) of the^COTP Att and the schedule therein define tobacco product.s Pan masala, gutkha and cheuing tobacco are inclu r^< din the deJinition of tobacco products. Section-S^q the COTP Act deals with prohibition of aduertisem't .t of cigarette and other tobctcco products only. No p: soll, or utho is engaged in the produc'tion, supp t distibution of cigarettes or other products :holl aduerhse the some. Similarlg, no person hauir r the control ouer a medium con aduertise cigaretl. :or tobacco products, and no person shall be a part^r'., ona oduertisement.

¶80

Section-7 of the COTP Act deols with the im1lt': LTLON of restiction on the sate, trade, commerce of tcl lCCO products unless euerg package of cigarette or t( L lCCO product contains a specified uarning (pictor r Lor othenuise). Section-4 of the COTP Act, bans smoki tq in public places. In addition, Section 6 of the COTF ,\Ct, prohibits the sale of cigarettes or other lc I lCCO products to a person uho is under the age of 1,3 1 ears are in an area toithin 1OO yards of ang educr^t onal institution.

¶81

A reading of this Act, particularlg Sections <, 5, 6 and 7 ctearlg shorus that there is no general l:t n. or generol prohtbition on the manufacture/ sole of tc I acco

¶82

¶83

products. What is barred is merelA^{the sdle of these} products to a person, uho is below^{the age of 18} Aears and. in an orea uithin^{1OO gards of an educational} institution. The^{other aspects couered bg Sections-S} and 7 of the COTP^{Act, deol u)ith the aduertisement} and the tuarning,^{ttthichis to be contatnedon a} package, in u-tt'ich the^{tobaccoproductis packed'This} is a rigutatory mechanism^{onlg. Therefore,according to} this Court, the aboue^{saidoltegations of transportation,} possession, storage,^{sale and purchaseofbanned} iobacco^{productsttLilt not attract tlTe offence under} Section-7 of the^{COTP Act.}

¶84

As far as^{Sectron20 of the COTPAct is concemed,} as staied aboue, the^{allegationsagainstthe petitioner} in respectiue comptaints/^{charge sheets are thattheA-} u)ere transporting,^{possessing, stoing,sellingand} purchasing the banned^{tobacco products tothe} 'customeri illegalty in order to gain turonqful profits ln uieus of the said^{allegation,it is apt to refer to Section} 2O (2i of the^COTPAct for^{better appreciation of the} case and to decide^{the issuein question, and the same} is os under:

¶85

"2O. Punishment for failure^{to giuespecifieduaming} and nicotine ond^{lar contenls--}

¶86

(1 ) ...

¶87

(2) Ang person uLho^{sells or dtstnbutes cigarettes or} 'toi,bacci prorlucts u.thich do not contain either on the package or on their labet,^{the specified tlorning} ^^and 'the niiotine and tar contents shall in the case of first conuiction^{be punishable tttith impisonment for a term,} uhich mag ertend^{to one} Aear'^{or Luith} flne^uhichmag ertend to one thousand^{rupees, or utithboth, and, for} the second or^{subsequent conuiction'u'titlt} impisonment for o^{term tuhich mag extend to} .two giars and utith fne^{u.thichmay ertendtothree} thousand, nlPees."

¶88

Thus, Section-2)^{ofCOTP Actdealstuith} punishment for foiture^{to giue specified tuarningand} nicotine and tar contents. BuLⁱⁿ the complaints/ charge^{sheets, there is noallegatio-n} agaTnst^{the petitionersthat theg tuere carrgingon trade} oi "o*^"i.. in contraband or^{ong other tobacco} products tuithout^{label and specifieduaming on} -the said.^{products.In uieu of the same,the contents of the} complaints/^{chorgesheets lack the ingredients of} Seciion 2O^{(2) oJ the COTP Act. Euen, there isno} allegation that^{the seized products do not contain}

¶89

¶90

labels uith statutory u.tarning. Thus, registentul the cimes for the said offence dga{nst the petitioner: : tlot onlg contrarg to Section-2o (2) of COTP Act, but dso contrary to the principle latd clotun in Chid t ula Shgamsubderl . In uieu-.t of the same, the offerce i, tler Section 20 (2) of COTP Act ls also liable to be qt.,r : hed against the petrtioners. I once again reiterate tt 1t I agree urth the pnnciple laid down by the l,'rr r,ect Single Juclges of the High Court of Andhro Practc:^tt in Chtdurala Shgamsubderl, Sn. Jaganath Enterlt ,ses 2O2O (1) ALT (Crl.) 215 (APHC) ond V. Nagestuartl [,ao 2O2O Supreme (AP) 348.

¶91

Therefore, in the present batch of the Petitions, i rcre are no allegations which support the ingred ,,; oJ Section 7 and 20 of the COTP Act, 20O3.

¶92

It is releuant to note that in some of the cas?. the Petittoners u-tere charged under Sections 21 anrl . 2 oJ the COTP Ac| 2003, and the said prouision; are ertracted belou'.

¶93

"21. Punishment for smoklng in certaitt places.-(1) Whoeuer contrauenes th,: prouisions of section 4 shall be punishabt l with fine which may ertend to tuto hundn,,l rupees. (2) An offence under this secti,t,t shall be compoundable and shall be trie,l summailg in accordance uith tlt : procedure prouided for summary tio'ls i t the Code of Ciminal Proced.ure, 1973 (2 r I 1 974).',

¶94

'22. Punishment for aduertisement t l cigarettes and tobacco products.-Whoeu t contrauenes the prouision of section 5 sholl. on conuict[on, be punishable- (a) in the co:c. of first conuiction, uith [mpisonment for^.. term uthich mag ertend to tLLo Aears or uill Jine^{uthich mag extend} to one thousan,. nlpees or uith both, and (b) in the case o, second or subsequent conuiction LLill impisonment for a tenn uhich maA ertenc to fi.ue gears and with fne tohich mr,L axtand to tue thousond rupees."

¶95

According to this Court, the ingredients of Sec i n 21 of COTP Ac' 2OO3 dre not satisfied. Th.ere s no allegation. against the Petitioners herein that the 1 tuere

¶96

¶97

smoking in a public place. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be charged uith Section 21 of COTp Act, 20O3.

¶98

Further, the ingredients of Section 22 of the COTp Act, 2003 are also not attracted. There is nothing to suggest that the Petitioners in anytuay aduertised cigarettes and other tobacco producG u,,hich is prohibited und.er Section 5 of the COT7 Act. 2003. TtT. allegations onlA pertain to transportation, sale. possession, manufacture, storagc ond do not include aduerttsement of such products. Therefore, the Petttioners connot be charged tuith S-ection 22 of COTP Act, 2O03.

¶99

1 1 . In uieu.t of the aboue said discussio n. all these, Cnminal Petitions except Crl.p. No.74SS of 202 I are allowed quashing the proceedings tn thi respectiue Cimes/ Calend"ar Cases/Sessrons Cases in terms of the common order, dated OS_O7.2021 passerl by thils Court in Mohd. Jatneel Ahmed (Supra)."

¶100

In view of the above, the COTpA is meant ro prohibiting 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 there is no totai ban of tobacco products envisaged and Sections 4 , 5, 6 and Z ciearly shows that there is no general ban or general prohibition on the manufacture or sale of tobacco products. Selling of these products to a person, who is below the age of 1g years and in an area within 100 yards of an educational institution is barred. In the present case, there is no allegations in the

¶101

¶102

rnvestigation report that accused Nos.l to 7 ar: below rhe age of 18 vears and these petitioners are selling the cigarettes w,ithin 100 yards of an educational institution. Section 20 (2) of COTPA says that any person vho sells or distrlbutes cigarcttes or tobacco products .* I ich do not contain either on the package or on thr:rr label, the speclfied '"varning and the nicotine and tar conr ,r1ts shall in the case of first conviction be punir; table wrth imprisonment for a term, which may extend r () cne year, or with fine which may extend to one thousar < rupees, or with both. The said section deals with pt_r : .shment for faiiure to give specilied warning and nico, ne and tar contents. But, charge sheet averments shows r hat no such allegations against the petitioner that he wa j ,rarrying on trade or commerce in contraband or any o Lrer tobacco products without label and specified warnin I ()n the said products. Even, there is no allegation thiL the seized products <1o not contain labels with statll , ry warning. Further, the petitioner was also charged unck: Sections 21 and 22 of the COTPA, wherein, Section 2 dcals u,ith punishment lor smoking in certain piaces : nd prohibits

¶103

¶104

¶105

smoking in public places and Section 22 deals with punishable for advertisement of cigarette and tobacco products. In the present case, there is no such allegation that the petitioner is smoking cigarette in public places and advertising about cigarette and tobacco products. In view of the above none of the allegations in the averments of the charge sheet constitute the offences alleges against the petitioner. Therefore, proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

¶106

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is ailowed and the proceedings against the pe titioner/ accused No.l I in C.C.No.67O of 2018 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. There shali be no order as to costs.

¶107

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall also stand closed.

¶108

Date: 08.2024 ktm

¶109

JUSTICE K. SUJANA

Syed. Wahed, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed. Wahed, 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

Modugula Anil Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

M.D.Yousuf, Vs The State of Telangana

Aujigari Santosh Reddy, Vs The state of Telangana

Potiacheruvu Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

G.Anand Vardhan Vs State of Telangana

Mr. Sushil Sahni, Vs State of Telangana