The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad

2. The Sub-lnspector of Police, Talamadugu Police Station, Adilabad Dist. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 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. 10 of 2025 on the file of Talamadugu Police Station, Adilabad District for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 275 of BNS 7(1) 20(2) COTPA Act against the Petitioners l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents/Talamadugu Police Station, Adilabad District to release the property Mahindra Maxx festiva passenger vehicle APO1V01 80, Vivo Mobile Phone, Sewing Machine, 1) V-1 tobacco 300 packets, each packet Rs.30. Rs.9,000/-, 2)ZL-O1 ZatraniZarda 300 packets, each packet Rs 33/-. Rs. 9,900/-. 3) Eagle Tobacco 10 Packets, each packet Rs. 55/-. Rs.550/-.4) Hola Tobacco 10 packets, each packet Rs.82l. Rs.820/-. 5) Vimal Pan Masala 100 packets each packet Rs. 120/-, Rs. 12,000L, 6). Vimal Pan Masala 260 packets, each packet Rs.1501. R.39,000/- 7). Raj nivas 300 packets, each packet / Rs.128/- Rs. 38,400/-. 8). Musfir pan masala 50 packets, each packet Rs.150/-, Rs. 7,5001 above total V{lRs. I ,'17 ,17 O/seized in FIR NO. 10 o'f 2025 on the file of Talamadugu Police Station, Adilabad District in favor of the petitioners. / This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BALA MURALI Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JTIWADI SRIDE\rI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10a6 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition. is filed by petitioner-accused No.1 to qrrash the proceedings in FIR No'10 of 2o-25 on t}refileofStationHorrseofficer,Talamadugr.rPolice Station, Adilabad District' The offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No'1 are under Sections 272,275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS') (Previously Sections 272 and' 273 of the Indian Penal Code), 7 (1) and 20(21 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Aclvertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Procluction, Suppiy and Distribution) Act (for short'COTP Act')'

02. Heard Sri Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veera-rnalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor lor the State-respondent'

03. In Chidurala Shgamstbder tt' State oJ TelanganaL, a learned Single Judge of the High Court' I CRL.P.No.3731 of20l8 and batch dated 27 08 2018 I 2 by follou'ing the guidelines laid dorvn by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana a, Bhajan IaI:, held that the Police are incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 45 and 59(1) of the Food Safet5r and Standards (IISS) Act, 2006, investigating into the offences along with other ollences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and filing charge sheet is grave illegality, as the Food Officer alone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet following the Rules laid dowlr under Sections 4L and 42 of FSS Act, whereas, in the present case, the Police have registered the crime for the offences rrnder Se<:tions 272, 275 of BNS, 7 (1) and 20(2) of the COTP Act

04. In so far as Section 20(21 of the COTP Act is concerr-red, the allegations against the petitioner are that he is selling the tobacco products to the customers illegally in order to gain wrongful profits. In view of the said allegations' it is apt to refer to Section _ 20 (21 of the COTp 2 lee2 supp 1l12ods;s 3 Act for better appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question' and the same is as under: "2O(2) AnA person uho sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain eith.er on the package or on their label, the specified tuarning and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the case of fi.rst conuiction be punishable with impisonment for a term, uhich may ertend to one gear, or uith fine uhich may extend to one thousand rupee, or uith both, and, for the second or subsequent conuiction, with impisonment for a term which mag extend to tu-to years and ulith fi.ne which mag extend to three thousand rupees."

05. Thus, Section 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. As stated above, the allegation against the petitioner herein is that they purchase the tobacco products and sell them to customers at higher prices to gain wrongful profits. The petitioner is neither trader, nor supplier/distributor of cigarcttes or any other tobacco products. There is no allegation in the charge sheet against the petitioner that he is carrying on the trade or commence in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products. In 4 view of the s€une, the contents of the FIR lacks the ingredients of Section 20(21 of the COTP Act. In the entire FIR, there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain tht: labe ls as well as statutory warning. Therefore, registering the crime for the said offences against the petitioner is also contrary to Section - 20 (2) of COTp Act. Thus, the offence under Section - 20 (21 of COTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioner. Since there is no allegation against the petitioner that he is supplying or distributing cigarettes or any other tobacco products, the offence under Section 7 (1) of COTP Act is not made out. Therefore, the said proceedings in FIR No.10 of 2O2S against the petitioner are contrary to tl-re principle held by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Chidura.la Shgatnsubder (supra) ar-rcl, accordingly, the same are liable to be quashed.

06. In view of the above subntission, the present Crirninal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR No.10 of 2O2S on the f,rle of Station House Officer, Talamadugrr Police Station, Adilabad a 5 District, are hereby quashed. The petitioner-accused No. 1 is at liberty to Iile appropriate application before the learned Court below for return of seized property. On such application being filed, the learned Court below is directed to release the seized property to the petitioner on proper acknowledgment. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stald closed. \ To SdI A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate(PCR) at Adilabad' i. +ffi 6i;iid; H;u;e off ic;;:YaLmiiug''police.station' Adilabad District' 5. +w;c*c; b ir," Fi,nri" Pil;;;t";; Hi6h court for the state or relansana at a iji,icCi" Snr. 6nr-n MURALIY, Advocate [oPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad (OUT) u HIGH COURT DATED: 3010112025 ORDER CRLP.No.1086 of 2025 t J 0 4 FrB 202'5 * B ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION s\ w