High Court · 2025

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

2. B. Shiva Prasad, Sub-lnspector of Police. P.S. Shahinayathgunj, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/DE FACTO-COMPLAI NANT 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 may be pleased to call for the records and quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in CC.No.403 of 2018 in the court of the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.'1 to 3 in CC.No.403 ol 2018 in the court of the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M A K MUKHEED, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE l-lON( )U RABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRI DE:!1 CITIMINAL PETITIO N No.1469 of2022 ORDER This; Crirrinal Petition is filed under Section 482 of 'lr'P C by the petitioners-ac cused Nos.'1 to 3 to quash the proce':dinqr; against them in C.C.No.z03 of 2018 on the file of the learned XVI ltdditional Chief Metrotrrolita'r Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered fr>r tl^e offences under Secticns 12l3 and 336 of the lndian Penal Code, 186(.t (for short 'lPC') and 20(il of the Cigarettes and Other 'fobaccc Products (Prohibition )f Ac vertisement and Regulation of Trade and (;(rmmerce, Production, llupp y and Distribution)Act, 2003 (for short 'rlOl F Act'). 2 Heerrcl {i-i M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioners and tilrs. S.lv'ladl- avi. learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fol the State- respondent. Pert tsed the record

3. ln Chidt'rata Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana , a learned Single Judg,:,:f tris Court, by following the guidelines laid dctvn by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sfate of Haryana v. Bhaiart r-al2, held that the Police ;tre incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) of the Forld l:)irfety and Standards (l:SS)Act,2006, investigating into the offences rrlong with other offenc,:s ur der the provisions of the lndian Penal Code 'l 860, and 1CRL.P.No.3731 oI201t a (1 t)atch d.1ted 27.08.2018 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 3:r5 { i: '! 2 filing charge sheet is grave iilegarity, as the Food officer arone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet following the Rules laid down under Sections 41 and 42 of FSS Act. ln the present case, the Police have registered the crime against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 273 and 336 of lpC, which is contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubder,s case (supra).

4. For better appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question, it is apt to refer Section 2O(2) of the COTp Act and the same is as under: "20(2) Any person who selts or clistributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain "iti", or-ti, package or on their labet, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar contents sha in the "u"i of- iir"t conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one vear or $,ith fina ,^,u,^." ^^' e x te n d t o o n e t h o u sa n d' rl;:: r," ::'1, I n #: :: { ;:, the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment fol a, term which may extend to two years .ia *itn finu whtch may extend lo three lhousand rupees.,, 5 Thus, Section 20 of COTp Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents The allegation against the petitioners herein is that they are selling the tobacco products to .the customers iregary in order to gain wrongfur profits. There is no a,egation in the charge sheet against the petitioners that they are carrying on the trade or commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said f products, herrce tre offence under Section 2O(2) of the Cf,TF,r\ct is not made out against he petitioners and same is liable to be cluasnr:d.

6. ln vieiv r f the foregoing discussion, this Crimirral r)rttition is allowed and lhe proceedings against the petitioners-accus,ed llos..l to 3 in c.c.No.403 of 2018 on the fire of the rearned XVr Acrditicrar chief Metropolitan Mag strate at Hyderabad, are hereby quas red. The petitioners-ac;u se j Nos.1 to 3 are at liberty to filer agrp,lepllsfs application before the triar court for return of seized prop3rty ()n such application be'ing f led, the trial court is directed to relea:;e il.rer seized property to the preti ioners on proper acknowledgment. As a seqr- el, pending miscellaneous applications if :;ry, shall If stand closed //TRUE COPY// so?;,r;!lll1g5i+?'^'J ,\ sEc'rl()N oFFlcER To, The XVI Additiona Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad' One CC to llRl. f\l A K MUKHEED Advocate iOPUCI Two CCs to Publ c Prosecutor' High Court for State of Telarrgana [OUT] Two CD Copies

1. 2 3 4 Snt/uasfk x "1 HIGH COURT DATED: 19103111025 ,4.' ,,-- / o\- .t c rJ ,l,i \c c,+ 1B rrrN 2U5 i 6 ( .\ ,, ORDER i GRLP.No.1469 of 2022 DISPOSING TFIE CRIMINAL PETITION ncR(nA ffi"