The High Court · 2025

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. 7 of 2025 on in. file of t\rlatwada Police Station: Warangal District against the Petitioner. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents/ Matwada Police Station, Warangal District to release the property 1) Amabar 7 Packets 7x2500=175001-, 2) Baba 1'1 packets X 300 = 33001, 3) JK 70 packets 7 X 150 ='10500,4) Vl Tobacco 26 Packets X 50 = 1300/-, 5) Ambar Small 50 packets X 500 = 250001-,6) Vimal '156 Packets X 150 = 234OOl-. Total seized ambar and tobacco amount is Rs.86,200/- seized in FIR No.7 of 2025 on the file of rvlatwada Police station, warangal District in favor of the petitioner/accused. 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 Petitroner and sri Jithender Rao veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on beha{f of the Respondent No.'1 . The Court made the following Order : THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIOEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 52 3 ot 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused to quash the proceedings in FIR No.7 of 2O2S on the file of the Station House Officer, l/larwada Police Station, Warangal District. The offences alleged against the petitioner-accused arr-. under Sections 272, 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (fcr shorl ,BNS,) (Previously, Sections 270 and 273 of the lndian perral Code).

02. Heard Sri Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Iearned A,dditional public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.

03. ln Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telanganal , a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by following the guidelines laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, held that the transportation or cher,ving tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 270 of IPC and that manufacturing of pan masala is not included in Section 273 of lpC and therefore, the same ts not an 'cRL.P No 3731 0f2018 ancl Latch dated 27 08.2018 ''1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 .I F 7 offence since it is not a noxious food. The learned Single Judge has further observed in the said Judgment which is as under: "....The act done by the petitioners l e , transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco though dangerous to human life, it would not spread or infect or cause any disease o:n account of transportation and if those products are consumed by human being' it would ceftainty cause damage to the health Therefore' transpoftation of khaini or chewing tobacco is not by ,fse/f is not an offence under Section 270 of IPC and it woutd fall within Section 270 of IPC'" "*Oo""t

04. Section 173 of lPC deals with sale of noxious food or for sale' drink, and as per which, whoever sells, or offers or 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 of either descriptlon for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both' Therefore' if a person offers for sale a'food or drink'any article which has become noxious or is in a state of unfit for 'food or drink' Thus' the said section would apply' when an article which has become noxious or which has been rendered noxious. lt also applies to food or drink onlyAs held in Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasadhi Tripati Rao v' The State 3 of Andhra Pradesh3, the word 'noxious' is not defined in IPC and FSS Act. As per the dictionary meaning, the word 'noxious' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As stated above, the t allegation is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned tobacco products. Hence. the contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of Section 273 ol lPC. Therefore, the said proceedings in FIR No.7 of 2025 registered under Sections 272, 275 of BNS against the petitioner are contrary to the principle held by the learned Single Judge of the High Cor-rrt in Chidurala Shyamsubder (supra) and, accordingly, the same are liable to be quashed 05 ln view of the above, the present Crirninal Petition is allowed in terms of Chidurala Shyamsubder (supra), and the proceedings in FIR No.7 of 2025 on the file of the, Station House Officer, Marwada Police Station, Warangal District, are hereby quashed. The petitioner-accused is at liberty to file appropriate application before the learned Court below for rtdurn of seized property. On such application being filed, the learne<l Cou( below is directed to release the seized property to the petitioner on proper acknowledg ment 'zozo 1ryaLT 1cnL.) 215 (ApHc) 4 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY,, Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD EGISTRAR ASSISTA SE N c ER To, The lll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Warangal The Station House Officer' Matwada PS' Warangal District Two CCs to thePublic Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OU I I One CC to Sri Bala Murali Y' Advocate [OPUCI Two CD CoPies 1 z 4 5 VA/gh s HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 ORDER CRLP.No.1523 of 2025 1!r S IA/( ct. c^ e J () U t t \ 1t ri .2025 ( ( , 2 o€sp 1Tc sF-9 * ALLOWING THE CRLP @Gria W