Sajid Ali Khan Vs The State of Telangana

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 CC No. CC. No 347O\2O2S of FtR. No.77l2O17. p S Chandrayanagutta. under section 420 ipc, sec.s, 6 (a), 7, rtw 2O(2),22 and 24(1) of cigarette and other tobacco product (p.A and RTCpSD) aci-ZOOg. tn fh6 Court Of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate At Hyderabad against the petitioners

¶14

l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court maybe pleased to STAY of all further proceedings in CC No. 34lOl2OiS ot FIR No.7712017. Police Station Chandrayanagutta. under section 420 lpC, sec.S, 6 Q!-Z,^{rlw 20(2),22 and 24(1)of cigaretteand other tobacco product(p.Aand} RTCPSD) act-2003. ln the court of Honourable of chief Mekopolitan Magiskate At .Hyderabad against the petitioners pending disposal of ihe above quash petition

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MD FASIUDDIN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the SRI M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

IN TH HIGH CO FOR THE ST EOFTE GANA AT HYD D

¶19

THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRI AL PETITION No. 1269 of2026

Date: 2.2026

Between

Sajid Ali Khan

...Petitioner/accused No.6

¶24

AND

¶25

The Statr: of Telangana, Represerrted by its Public Prosecutor, High Corrrt of Judicature at Hyderabad and another

¶26

respondents

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in c:.c.No.3470 of 2025 pending on the file of the chief lrletropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.6 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian penal code, lg60 (for shc,rt 'IPC') and Sections 5, 6(4), 7 read with Sections 20(2), ?-2 and 24(l) of the cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (for short 'COTP Act').

¶29

2

¶30

Heard Mr. Mohd. Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.l-State.

¶31

Learned 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

¶32

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

¶33

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and the order passed by this court in crl.P.No.5577 of 2023, dated 08.08.2024, this criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.6 in c.c.No.3470 of 2025 pending on the file of chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Further the Station House officer/Investigating officer is hereby directed to retum the seized property on proper identification and verification under due acknowledgment.

¶34

3

¶35

Perrding rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶36

closed.

¶37

Sd/. T.SRINIVASA REDOY AS T REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ON OFFICER

To

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate At Hvderabad z. r he station House officer, e handrayangltta porice station chandrayangutta Hyderabad

¶42

One CC to SFlt. MD FAS|UDD|N Advocate tOpUCl

¶43

Two CCs to^pubtic prosecutor, High Cotrt f; ineState of Tetangana at Hyderabad IOUTI 5. Two CD Coiies^'

¶44

cr

¶45

patch along with copy in Crl.p.No.5S77 ot 2023, dt:OB-08-2024.

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/0!l/2026

ORDER

CRLP.No.1269 of 2026

iiiE S 14
t CY(
Jf
))
c z
[ / I'AB 2r]28
\
*
t
o
h

¶51

ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶52

u 0

¶53

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETIfION No.5577 of 20123

¶54

ORDER:

¶55

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, L973 (for short Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner/accused No.11, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. No.670 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'IPC) and Sections 5, 6(A), 7 rcad with 2O(2), 22, 24(1) of Cigarette and Other Tobacco Product Act, 2OO3 (for short 'COTPA).

¶56

Brief facts of the case are that on 3L.O3.2OL7, 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 2017 before the Chandrayangutta Police. In the said charge sheet, it was alleged that accused Nos.1 to 7 used to purchase cigarettes etc., from accused, Nos.8

¶57

2

¶58

to 11 arrd after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was file:d vide C.C.No.670 of 2018 on the file of Chief Metropc'litan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶59

Ht:ard Sri S.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petition,:r and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is innocent and he never sold anything to accused Nos. L to 7 and he is not selling any prohibited products and the said seized products are not prohibited products. He further submitted that said permissible tobacco items are not harmful to the health of general public rand 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- Criminal Petition No.5619t of 2O2O and batch dated LO.O6.2O22, Criminal Petition No.10073 of 2022 dated 19.12.2022 and prayed the Cou.rt to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceed:ings against the petitioner.

¶61

3

¶62

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions 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^quality and the^{petitionerselling} the products without statutory warning^{markedon it.} Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the^Criminal Petition.

¶63

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

¶64

4

¶65

In Criminal Petition No.5619 of 2O2O and batch dated

¶66

1O.O6.2C22, at paragraph Nos.7 to 1 t held as under:-

¶67

In relation to offences under Secttons - 20 (2), 7 (3) ond 7(5) thi.s court in Moh.d. Jameel Ahmed (SuprQ had le|d as foltous:

¶68

With regard to tle offences under COTP Act, it is releuant to mention the objects and the reasons of the sal|.d Act itself clearly state tlat the act is meant to prohibit the aduertisement of, and to provide for the regulation of trade and cotnm.erce in, ond prodtctiory sultplg and distribution of, cigarettes and other tobacco prcrducts and for mdtters annected tlwreuith or incidental thereto. A reading of tlle sai.d objec:ts of the satd Act would reueal that a total ban of tobaca prcducts wds not envisaged bg the said Act. The Parliament merelg felt it expedient to control the ad'tertisement and sale of tobacco products. As noted earlier in the order, Section-3 (p) of tle COTP Act and the schedule therein define tobacco produc,ts. Pan masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the definition of tobacco products. Section-S of the COTP Ad deals with prohibition of aduertisement of cigarette and otler tobacco products onlg. No person, utho is engaged in the production, supplg or distributton of cigarettes or other products slu.ll aduertise the sam.e. Similarlg, no person lnuing tlle antrol ouer a medium can aduertise cigareltes or tobacco products, and. no person shall be a part of ang aduertisem.ent.

¶69

3O. Section-7 of tle COTP Act deals with the imposition of restiction on the sab, trade, commerce of tobacco produds unless euery package of cigarette or tobacco produd contails a specified uarning (pictorial or othzruise). Section-4 of the COTP Act, bans smoking in public places. In addition, Section-6 of tlw COTP Act, prohibits tle sale of cigarettes or other tobacco pro'Cucts to a person uho is under tle age of 18 gears are in on area uithin 10O gards of ang educatiornl institution.

¶70

A reading of this Ac,t, particularlg Sectior*-4, 5, 6 anal. 7 clearlg shous that tlere is no geneml ban or general prohibition on th.e manufacture/ sale of tobaca

¶71

5

¶72

produds Wlwt is barred is merelg th.e sale of these prodtas to a persoq utla is belout tle oge of 18 gears and in an area uithin 1OO^gards of an educational institution. The other aspec.ts couered bg Sections-5 and 7 of tle COTP Act, deal urith the aduertisement and the warning, tlhich is to be antained on a paclcage, in uhich the tobaca product i,s pacleed. This is a regulatory meclanism onlg. Therefore, according^tn this Court, the aboue said allegations of transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned tobacco products will not attract the oJfence under Sedion-7 of tte COTP Act.

¶73

As far as Section-2o of tle COTP Ad is concemed, ds stated aboue, the allegations against the^petitioner in respectiue amplaints/ ctarge sheets are thdt theg uere transportirq, possessing, stoing, selling and purchasing the banned tobaca ptoditcts to the customers illegallg in order to^gain wrongfiil^{profits. In} uieut of the said atlegatbn, it is apt to refer to Section20 (2) of the COTP Act for better appreciation of^the case and to decide the issue in^qtestion, and tle same is as under:

¶74

"2O. Punishment for failure to giue spectfied utaming and nicotine and tar contents.' (1)...

¶75

(2) Ang person tata sells or distrtbutes cigarettes or tobacco products tuhich do not contain eitler on^the package or on their labeL the specified uaming and the niatine and tor contents shall in the case of first anuic,tton be punistnble uith imprisonment for a^term, uthich mag extend to one gear, or uith fine uthich^mag ertend to one tlousand n4)ees, or uith both and" for the second. or subsequeti anuiction"^with imprisonment for a term uthich mag ertend. to^ttDo gears and uith fine uhich mag ertend to three tlousand rupees."

¶76

Tluts, Section-2o of COTP Act deals^utith punishment for foifure to giue specified warning and niatine and tar contents. But, in tle amplaints/ charge sheets, there is no^allegatbn against tle petitioners tlwt theg uere carrying^{on trad.e} or @mmer@ in anlraband or any^{other tobaca} produds witlaut label and specifted uaming on tle said produc'ts. In vieut of the^sam.e, the^{antents of the} amplaint-s/ clurge sheets lack the ingredients of Section-2o (2) of the COTP Act.^{Euen,th.ere is ra} allegation tlnt the seized productts do twt contain

¶77

6

¶78

labels utith stahiory utaming. Tlrus, registeing the cnmes for tle said offence against the petitioners is not onlg contrary to Section-2O (2) of COTP Act, but also contrary to tte principle laid doun in Chidurala ShgamsubderT. In vieut of the safiE, tle offence under Section-2O (2) of COTP Act is dlso liable to be quasled against the petitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree uith the pinciple laid doun bg tle learned Singte Judges of the High Court of Andlva Pradesh in Chidurala Shgamsubderl, S'i. Jaganath Enterprises 2O2O (1) ALT (CrL) 215 (APHC) and V. Nagesutara Rao 2O2O Supreme (AP) 348.

¶79

Th,zrefore, in tLe present batch of thc Petitions, there arct no allegations which support the ingredients of Se,tion 7 and 20 of the COTP Act, 2OO3.

¶80

It is releuant to note that in some of the cases, the Pelitioners uere ctarged under Sec.tions 21 and 22 of thE COTP Act, 2OO3, and the sai.d provisions are extracted belou.t-

¶81

"21. Punishment for smoking in certain

¶82

places.-{ 1) Wtaeuer contrauenes tte prouisions of sedion 4 slnll be Wnisfabb utith fine uthich mag extend to two lrundred rupees. (2) An offence under this section stall be compoundable and shall be tried summailg in accordance with tle

¶83

procedure prouided for summary t'iak in the Code of Ciminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)."

¶84

"22. Punishment for aduertisement of cigarettes and tobacco produds.-Wlaeuer contrauenes the proubion of sedion 5 slnll" on anuiction, be punisLable- (a) in tle case of first conuiction" utith imprisonment for a term uthich may ertend to tluo gears or with fine^{which mag extend to one thousand} rupees or with both, and (b) in the case of second or subsequent onuictbn uith imprbonment for a term uhich mag exTend to fiue gears and urith fine uhbh mag ertend to fiue thousand rupees."

¶85

According to thi.s Court, tle ingredi.ents of Sedion 21 of COTP Act, 2OO3 are not satisfied. Tlere is no allegtation against tle Petttioners herein that theg were

¶86

7

¶87

smoking in a public place. Tlwrefore, th.e Petitioners cannot be chnrged with Section 21 of COTP Act, 2OO3.

¶88

Rntler, ttrc ingredients of Section 22 of tlw COTP Act, 2003 are abo not attracted. There is nothing to suggest that the Petitioners in anguaA aduertised cigarettes and other tobacco products uthich fs prohibited under Sedion 5 of the COTP Act, 2003. The allegations only pertain to transportation, sale, possesszon, manufacture, storage and do not include aduertisement of such products. Tlterefore, the Petitioners cannot be charged uith Section 22 of COTP Act, 2003.

¶89

In uieut of the aboue sai.d. discttssfon, all tlrcse Criminal Petitions except Crl.P. No.7455 of 2021 are allouted quashing th.e proceedings in the respectiue Crimes/Calendar Cases/Sessfons Cases in terms of tle common order, dated 05.07.2021 passed bg this Court in Moh.d.. Jamcel Ahnrcd (Supra).'

¶90

In view of the above, the COTPA is meant to prohibiting

¶91

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 total ban of tobacco products envisaged and Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 clearly 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 18 yea-rs and in an area within 1OO yards of an educational institution is barred. In the the present case, there is no allegations in

¶92

8

¶93

investigation report that accused Nos. L to 7 are below the age of 18 yea-rs and these petitioners are selling the cigarettr:s within 1OO yards of an educational institution. Section 20 (21 of COTPA says that any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the ca.se of first conviction be punishable with impriso:nment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with bc,th. The said section deals with punishment for failure to grve specified warning and nicotine and tar contentrs. But, charge sheet averments shows that no such allegations against the petitioner that he was carrying on trade o.r commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products. Even, there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain labels with statutory warning. Further, the petitioner was also charged under Sections 21 and 22 of the COTPA, wherein, Section 2l deals with punishroent for smoking in certain places and prohibits

¶94

9

¶95

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 placesand} 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^againstthe petitioner. Therefore, proceedings against the^{petitionerare} liable to be quashed.

¶96

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed^{and the} proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.11 in C.C.No.67O of 2OL8 on the file of the^{Chief Metropolitan} Magistrate at Nampdly, Hyderabad are^{hereby quashed.} There shall be no order as to costs.

¶97

Pending miscellaneous^petitions, if aflY, in^this Criminal Petition shall also^standclosed.

¶98

JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶99

Date .o8.2024 ktm

Sajid Ali Khan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid Ali Khan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Zakiullah, Vs The State of Telangana

Nitin Tandon Vs The State of Telangana

Bijjala Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Miskeen @ Miskin Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Abdul Hadi Shaheri @ Ma Hadi Vs The State of Telangana

Ramilla Visal alias Ramila Vishal Vs The State of Telangana