The High Court · 2025

Order

This Criminal Petition is fiIed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.27 of 2025 of Habeebnagar Poiice Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 223 and I25 of BNS, 2023 and Section 20(21 of COTPA. , ! I \

2. Heard Mr. Syed Mahaboob, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned t l Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the oider dated 15.O4 .2024 in Criminai Petition No.23O9 of 2024.

4. karned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the issue in the present criminal petition is covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition.

5. In view of the said representation and as the matter is squarely covered by the order in the above criminal petition, 2 this criminal petition is allowed in terms of the above said order, adopting the reasoning contained therein. The proceedings against the p,:titioners/accused Nos. I to .3 in Crime No.2Z of 2025 of Habeebnagar police Station, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Further, the Station House Officer/ Investigating Officer is hereby directed to return the seized property on proper identification and verification under due acknowledgment. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall also stand closed' I To, solli,.snruent ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1 TION OFFICE

1. The XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad[OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Syed ltr'lahboob, Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD Copies (along with the copy of order dated 15.04.2024 in Crl.P.No.2309 ol 2024) v HIGH COURT DATED:2 510212025 ORDER S-I t i) :) o t) I i,lIt3 HIt \ / I CRLP.No.274C) of 2025 r)€- ALLOWING TI-IE CRL.P. @ W THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.23O9 OF 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is liled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, L973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.J to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 in S.C.No.24 of 2021, on the frle of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 1a8,269, 27O,272,273 of the Indian Penal Code, 186O (for short 'the IPCJ, Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substarces Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act) and Section 20 (2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (for short the COTP ActJ.

2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioners is that on 27.O3.2O2O while police were in patrolling, they found the petitioners possessing, selling and purchasing the banned products viz., gutka and ganja respectively, for which, the Police registered a case against the petitioners for the offences alleged against the petitioners are that Sections 788, 269, 27O, 272 and 273 of the IPC, Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (i0 (B) of the NDPS Act and Section 20 (21 of the COTP Act, respectively. Basing on the said complaint the Police registered the case in Crime No.53 of 2 slrs,J CrLP.No.23O9 OF 2024 2O2O and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet and the sarne was numbered as S.C.No.24 of 2O2l on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magtstrate, Hyderabad.

3. Heard Sri Y. Bala Murali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague and did not attract any of the offence. Making his submission, he relied on the judgment of this Court vide order dated O5.O7.202 I in Criminat Petition No. 152 of 2020, wherein this Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners and he further submitted that the present matter is also covered by that order. As such, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection with regard to Sections lA8, 269,27O, 272, 273 of IPC and Section 20 (2) of COTP Act. The petitioners were also charged for the offence under Section Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and he has prayed the Court that the trial has to be conducted for the,offence punishable under NDPS Act. 3 srs,J crl.P.No.23o9 oF 2024 RELE VANT PROyISIO]VS UNDER .TPC.. "788. Disobedience to order dulg promulgated by public seruant. - tutneuer, knowtng that, bg an order promulgated by a public seruant laufullg empouered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstatn from a ceftatn dct, or to take certain propeftg in his possession or under his management, disobeAs such directton, shalt, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or '.isk of obstruction, annoVqnce or injury, to anA person lautfullg emploged, be punished with simple imprbonment for a term which may ertend to one month or u.tith fine uthich mag ertend to two hundred rupees, or uith both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a iot or affrag, shall be punished uith impisonment of either desciption for a tern uthich mag ertend to s* months, or uith fi.ne u.thich mag ertend to one thousand rupees, or uith both. Explanahon: It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce Lnrm, or contemplate his disobedience as likelg to produce flann. It is sufficient that he knou.ts of the order tuhich he disobegs, and that his disobedience produces, or is likelg to produce, h.arm. Illustratton: An order is promulgated bg a public seruant laufullA etupouered to promulgdte such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass doun a certain street. A knotuinglg disobeys the order, and therebg causes danger of iot. A has committed the offence defned in this section." "269. Negtigent act likelt to spread infection of disease dangerous to lik. - Whoeuer unlawfullg or negligently does anA act which is, and uhich he knows or has reason to belieue to be, likelg to spread the infectioru of ang disease dangerous to life, shall be punistLed utith impisonment of either description for a term which mag extend to six months, or uith fine, or with both." 27O. Malignant act ltkelg to spread infection of disease dangerous to lift. - Wtneuer malignantly does ang act uthich is, and uthich he knotus or tns reason to belieue to be, likelg to spread the infeaton of ang disease dangerous to life, stnll be punished uith imprtsonment of either desciption for a term uhich mag extend to tuo Aears, or Luith fine, or uith botlL"

272. Adulteration of food or dink intended for sale.-Wtweuer adulterates any article of food or dink, so as to make such article noious as food or dink, irttending to sell such article as food or dinh or 4 s,rs,J crl.P No.2309 OF 2024 knouting it to be likelg thqt the same will be sotd as food or dink, shall be punished uith imprisonment ol either desciption for a term tohich mag ertend to sLr months, or uith fine uthich mag extend to one thousand rupees, or uith both." " 2 73 . Sale of noious food or drink. - WLaeuer sells , or offers or exposes for sale, as food or dink, any anticle which hos been rendered or tws become noious, or is rn a state unfit for food or dink, knouing or hauing reascn to belieue that tLLe sdme is non-rious as food or dink. shall be punbhed with impisonment of e-ither description for a term uhich mag ertend to six montlls, or utith Jlne Luhich may ertend to one thousand rupees, or uti'th botla." RELEVANT PRO I,ISIO1VS UNDER COTP ACT-

20. F\tnishment for failure to giue specifi.ed uanting ctnd nicotine and tar contents.- (2) AnA person u-)ho sells or distibutes ctgarettes or tob<tcco products uthich do not contqin wither on the package or on their label, the specified warrltng qnd the nicotine and tar contents shall in case of fi.rst conuiction be punistwble with impisonment.for a term, uthlch mag ertend to one gear, or uLith fi.ne which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent anuiction, uith impisonment for a term uthich mag ertend to tLUo gears and LDith fine uthich mag extend. to three tlnusand rupees."

6. The lis involved in the present petition is no more res integra. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh io Chidurala Shgam-subder as. Sta,te of Telanganal had an occasion to deal with the issues involved in the present criminal petition. After referring to various provisions of IPC, COTP Act and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts in several judgments, the leamed Single Judge had frarned the issues, which are as under: 'Crl.PNo.3731of 2018 & batch, decided on 27.o8.2o78 5 srs,J CrLP.No.23O9 OF 2O24 "1) Whether the respondent/ Sub-Inspector of Police, is competent to investigate into the offence punishable under Sections 5a and 59(1) of FSS Act? 2) Whether the petitioners in all the petitions are found committing any act with rnalicious intention, with knowledge and reason to believe that such act likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life? And whether the petitioners selling or offering or exposing for sale as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has becomenoxious or is in a state unfit for food or drink or reason to believe that the same is nodous as food or drink? If so, are they liabte to be proceeded for the offence punishable under Sections 27O aod 273 lPC.?"

7. In the very same judgment, the learned Single Judge further held that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the food' within the dehnition of Section 3 (j) of the FSS Act and the manufacture, sale or exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is governed by the provisions of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also thi provisions of IPC. The respondents-Police a-re incompetent to investigate the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (1) of the FSS Act artd allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the statements do not disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section - 273 of IPC since transportation of noxious food is not included under Section 273 of IPC. The act done by the accused therein i.e., transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco though dangerous to human life, it would not spread or infect or cause any disease on 6 srs,J Crt.P.No.2309 oF 2024 account of transportation and if those products zrre consumed by human being, it would certainly cause damage to the health. Therefore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco by itself is not an offence under Section - 27O of IPC. Pan Masala is not a tobacco product to fall within the purrriew of COTP Act. Therefore, the provisions of the COTP Act have no application, thereby registration o1' crime on the ground of violation of Sections - 7 (l) (2) (3) (5) and Section 26 of COTP Act is an illegality. The learned Single Judge further held that registration of cases for the offence under Section - 20 (21 read with 7 {2) of COTP Act is illegal. With the said findings, the learned Single Judge has quashed the crimes and calendar cases in the said judgment.

8. In Sri Jaganoth Enterprises Elura Vasandhi Tripati Roo as. The State oJ Andhra Pradesh2, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati had also an occasion to deal with the said issue. After referring to the contention of the respective parties therein, various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and relying on the principle laid down in Anand. Ramdhani Cltaurasia3, Joseph Kurian as. State of Keralaa, Sagged .Elassan Sagged Subhans, M/s. Pepsico Indla Holdings Pfi) 3 ' zozo 1r1 ar 1c4.1 21s (APHc) 2019 sCC Online Bom 1857 o tsss 1t1su ztt t zors atn 1sc; s:aa 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No-23O9 OF 2024 Ltd., as. State of U,P.6, Sanjag Anjag Stores us. Union of IndiaT, Boop Singh Tgagi vs. States, State of Earyana as. Bhajan Lale and Chidurala Shyamsubder (Supra 1), the learned Single Judge has quashed the FlRs/Calendar Cases. The learned Single Judge referring to the law laid down in Chidurala Shga m,s-ubder (Supra 1) held that despite the said authoritative pronouncement of law, status Eto continues. The said judgment attained finality. Even then, the police are registering cases against accused on the very sarne allegations for the very same offences.

9. Referring to the provisions of Sections - 1BB, 269, 27O, 272 and 273 of IPC, the learned Judge in Sri Jaganath Enterprises held that the offences registered under the said Sections are not maintainable. It further held that the provisions of the COTP Act can only be pressed into serrrice in the limited circumstances only where there is violation of Sections - 4, 5, 6,7 and 10 of the COTP Act. By referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan l,al and M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings in various crimes/calendar cases. 6 2011 (2) crimes 250 7 2017 SCC Online Cal 16323 " 2oo2 crl .L.l . zB72 ' 1992 Supp (1)scc 335 8 srs,J Crt-P.No,2309 OF 2024

10. Another learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in V.Nageswara Rqo as. State o! Andhra Pradeshro hzLd also an occasion to deal with the said issue and agreed with the principle laid down io Chidurala Shgamsubder (Supra 1).

11. ln Sagged.flassan Sagged Subhan (Supra 5), the Apex Court while dealing with legality of the order passed by the Bombay High Court in a batch of criminal writ petitions and criminal applications, which were filed challenging the registration of FIRs for the offences under Sections - 188, 272,273 atd 328 of IPC and Sections - 26 arrd 30 of FSS Act where there is an allegation of transportation and sale of Gutka/Pan Masala etc., held that the .judgment of Bombay High Court is contrary to the provisions of the Act and law laid down by it. With the said finding, the Apex Court remitted the matter to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration on the issue that whether the aforesaid offences are made out in the FIRs, which are subject matter of the cases pending before the Bombay High Court.

12. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law in the aforesaid judgments, as discussed above, coming to the facts of the cases on hand, the allegations against the accused in respective 10 2o2o supreme (Ap) 148 9 srs,J crLP.No.23o9 OF 2024 cases are transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., respectively. ln Chidurala Shgam.subder (Supra 1), the learned Single Judge observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section - 27O of IPC and that manufacturing of pan masala is not included in Section 273 of IPC and, therefore, the same is not an offence since it is not a noxious food. The learned Single Judge has further observed in the said judgment which is as under: "... Ttte act done by the petitioners i-e., transportation of khaini and cheuing tobacco though dangerous of human life, it utould not spread or inJect or casue anA diseqse on account of transportation and if those products are consumed bV human being, it uould certainlA cause damage to the health. Therefore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco is not bg itself is not an offence under Section - 27O of IPC and it luould fall within Section 27O of IPC."

13. Section - 272 of IPC makes punishable an offence by a person, who adulterates any article of food or drink. Therefore, the said section would only come into play or drink is adulterated. There is no deflnition of 'adulteration' in IPC. The definition 'adulterant' is found in the provisions of the FSS Act. Section - 3 (1) (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulterant' which means a material which could make the 'food' unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded. According to Section - 272 of IPC, if a material is used to make the food unsafe/sub-standard or mis-branded, then 10 srs,J Crl-P.No.2309 OF 2024 only the offence would be attracted. Whereas, as discussed supra, the allegation in the present batch of cases is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz. , tobacco f tambaku/ gutka / kt,atni/ zarda/pan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the said allegation does not fall within the ambit of Section -. 272 of IPC. Therefore, I agree with the principle laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shgam.subder (Supra 1), Sri Jaganath Enterprises (Supra 2) and V.Nagesuara Rao (Supra 10).

14. ln Joseph Kurian (Supra 4), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for Section 272 - IPC to be attracted, the following should be present. (l ) That the article involved was food and drink meant to be consumed by live persons; (2) that the accust--d adulterated it and the adulteration rendered it noxious as a 'food or drink'; (3) that the accused knew at the time of adulteration that he would sell the article as food or drink and knew that such article cannot be sold as foocl or drink. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the offence is completed on the introduction of the adulterant. 'Adulterant' would mean that a material which is mixed to make the food' unsafe or drink unsafe. In the present case on hand, tobacco is not a food or drink and what is stated to be mixed in it is not clearly established by aly cogent material as an ,adulterant, 11 STEJ CrLP-No.23O9 OF 2024 for the offence under Section - 272 of IPC to be pressed into servlce.

15. Section - 273 of IPC deals with sale of a noxious food or drink, and as per which, whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment specified therein. 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. It also applies to food or drink only. As held in Sri jaganath Enterprises, the word 'noxious' is not defined in IPC or in FSS Act. As per the dictionary meaning, the word hoxious' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As stated above, the allegation in the criminal petition is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale purchase of tobacco/tambaku/gutka/khatnilzarda/pan masala etc., balned products viz., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents ofthe complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section - 273 of IPC. 1,2 srs,J Crt.P.No.23O9 OF 2024

16. As far as Section - 188 of IPC is concerned, as per the settled law on the subject, before an accused is chargecl, there must be; an order duly promulgated by the public servant; the public servant must have the lawful authority to promulgate the order; the person flouting the same should have knowledge about the order directing him to abstain from the act; he must disobey the said order with the knowledge; and such disobedience of the duly promulgated order should cause a danger to the human life etc. In Boop Singh Tyagi a Division bench of Allalabad High Court held that right to promulgate the ordinance/order is also an issue which is being raised, because under the FSS Act, the Commissioner of Food Safet5r alone has the authority to pass the orders only if the article of 'food' can causes danger or is injurious to health.

17. In ,IV.?. Rama Roo vs. The State of A.P., rep bg Public Prosec.utorl l while dealing with the offences under Se<:tions - 188 arrd 283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under: "5) Euen if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meettngs at three road junctions contrary to the pertnission accorded for conducti.ng of a pubiic meettng onlg at one specified place is truct, such a direction under Section 3O of the Police Act, 1861 could hqve been gtuen onlg bg the Superintendent or the Assistant Supeintend_ent cf Criminal Petition Nc.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 srs,J crLP.No.2309 OF 2024 Police of the Dstict but not bg any of their subordinates. If such a permission [s granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is uiolated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Ciminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard h,,s to be made bg the public seruant concerned or some other person to whom such a public seruant is administratiuelg subordtnate to enable ang CoutT to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet uas filed bg the Sub Inspector of Police, uho auld not haue been th.e authoitg to grant permission for the public meettng and therefore, the complaint/ charge sheet is in uiolation of the mandatory prouision of Section 195 (1 ) 9a) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Tlnt apart, the offence alleged a haue been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code bg the petitioners and others is obuiouslg in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same. Euen othenuise, the conduce of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffi.c could not haue been considered as causing any danger or injury to ang person. In so far as the obsttuction in ang public taag is concemed, uthiclt can also be couered bg Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cttes onlg one uitness to speak about the traffi.c jam caused bg the rood show. But, u.then the conduct of the public meettng at least c1t one ptace has been permitted and if the gatheing for tlnt public meeting resulted in ang inconuenience bll rDaU of obstructing the tralrtc, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guiltA mens rea to construe the eistence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circum,stances, none of the offences alleged can be said to haue ang reasonable basis and in ang uieu, the mmplaint/ ctnrge sheet being in uiolation of Section 195 (1) (a) oJ Code of Criminal procedure, hd,s to fail.

7. As the complaint has failed due to its unsustatnability, the proceedings in their entirelg hque to fail, though the l"t accused. alone approached this Court bg uag of this Ciminal Petition. "

18. In Thota Chandra Sekllrar as. The state o:f Andhra Pradeslq through S,II.O., P.S. Elunt Rura( West God.a oari 1-4 slrs,J Crl.-P.No.2309 OF 2024 Districtl2, wherein by relying on various judgment including lV. T. Ram.a Rao (Supra 11) and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Iat (Supra 9) more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specilic provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to reciress the grievance of the party, it was held that the proceedings in the said C.C were quashed by exercising power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It was a-lso further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.

19. With regard to the offences under COTP Act, it is relevant to mention the objects and the reasons of the said Act itself clearly state that the act is meant to prohibit 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 for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. A reariing of the said objects of the said Act would reveal 12 Criminal Petition Nc.15248 of 2O16, decided on 2.6.1O.201-6 15 srs,J Crt.P.No-23o9 OF 2024 that a total ban of tobacco products was not envisaged by the said Act. The Parliament merely felt it expedient to control the advertisement and sale of tobacco products. As noted earlier in the order, Section - 3 (p) of the COTP Act and the schedule therein define tobacco products. Pan Masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the definition of tobacco products. Section - 5 of the COTP Act deals with prohibition of advertisement of cigarette and other tobacco products only. No person, who is engaged in the production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or other products shall advertise the same. Similarly, no person having the control over a medium can advertise cigarettes or tobacco products, and no person shall be part of any advertisement.

20. Section - 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. But, in the complaints/charge sheets, there is no allegalion against the petitioners that they were carrying on trade or commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products. In view of the same, the contents of the complaints/charge sheets lack the ingredients of Section 20 (2) ofthe COTP Act. Even there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain labels with statutory warning. Thus, registering the crimes for the said offence against the petitioners is not only contrary to Section - 20 (21 of COTP Act, but 16 sxs,J Crt.P.No.23O9 Ot 2024 also contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurata Shgamsubd.er. In view of the same, the offence under Section 2O (2) of COTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree with the principle laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder, Sri Jaganath Enterprises and V. Nageswara Rao.

21. In view of the above said discussion, according to this Court, transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of tobacco products are lrot totally balned in the State of Telangana and also in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sections - lBB, 269, 27O, 272 and, 273 of the IPC and Section 20 (2) of COTp Act are attracted to the present case. Insofar as the offence under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted.

22. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed in Part and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.24 of 2021, on the learned VIII Addition:rl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the file of registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 27O,272 and 273 of the IPC and Section 20 (2) of the COTp Act only are hereby quashed while permitting the prosecution to 17 sr(s,J CrLP.No.23O9 OF 2024 proceed further against the petitioners/ accused Nos.l and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Date:15.O4.2024 SAl K. SUJANA, J