Criminal Petition No. 5141 of2025 · The High Court · 2025

Order

THE H()NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAM.JI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5141 of2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2C23 {for short 'BNSSJ by the petitioner / accused to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No. 135 of 2025 on the file of the Matwada Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 275 of BNS. I t

2. Heard Mr.Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. 1-State' karne d counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3. matter is squarely covered by the order dated O5'O7'2O2 1 in Criminal Petition No. 152 of 2O2O and batch. lrarned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that 4. the issue in the present criminal petition is covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition. In view of the said representation and as the matter is 5. squarely covered by the order in the above criminal petition, - t1lis criminal petition is allowed in terms of the above said order, 2 adopting the reasoning contained therein. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No. 135 of 2025 on the file of the Matwada Police Station, Warangal District, are hereby quashed. Further, the Station House Officer/ Investigating Officer is hereby directed to return the seized property on proper identihcation and verification under due acknowledgment. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, l.ThellAdditionalJudiciilFirstClassMagistrate,Warangal. 2. The Station House Officer' Matwada Police Station' Warangal District' 3. One CC to Sri. Bala Murali Y' Advocate [OPUC] a S3 cctto the Public Prosecutor' High Courtfor the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies PSt(gh YY HIGH Court DATED:16104t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.5141 of 2025 t"| aJ J -(HE l: 14 6e ( 25API] 2m I .ic ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION I .{d F'o* I 2 Kt.., C .P. No.t52 of2020 & batch HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN C AL PETITION Nos.152. 153 155. 162 & D 3498. 3500.3509.3514,37 68.3E79.4046. 4070,4077.409E- 4099.4100, 4102,4110. 4tl9 4 140- 4l 41 4151 415 .4178- 4182 4187 4247 1249 425t, 4258, 4262. 4277. 4761. 4405, 4415. 4542. 4612. 4615. 4622<4632. 4640. 46E1. 4727. 477s & 4825 0F 202t. oF2 0 20 I 1 9il- 6 4210 42t 7 COMMON ORDER: All the above Criminal Petitions are filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners - accused in respective Crimes / Calendar Cases. The details of relevant Crimes / Calendar Cases, offences alleged, nafure of offences etc., are mentioned in the following tabular form: SI, No 0l

42. 0l 04 Crl.P No. Crime No. 3768/2t 21720 of PS Manobarabad 33nl of PS Kadam 78,21 of PS (T) Adilabad 4071/2t 2ll21 of PS 4M6/2) l Easgoan 05

06. o7 4099t21 4100/2r

08. 4t0a2t It5zt of PS (T) Nirmal No.l6l21 of PS Koutala. No.38,21 rof PS Easgoao 455/21 of PS Kukapally 09 4t4t/2t 4521 of PS Chiragpally Accused Nrrmber accused accused At &2 accused AI tol accused accused accused Alto3

10. 4t5t/21 198/21 of PS Choutuppal accused .

12. 4t82t2t 4187/2t 134121 of PS Chityal (NLG) 74/21 of PS Raghunadhpalem 202t21 ol PS (T) Mancherial AI to4 At &2 accussd Offences allegedly comftitted 272, 273 IPC & 20 (Z) r/w -7(2) of COTPA 270 &273 tPC -do- 270, 273 tPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA 270 & 213 IPC 270 & 273 tPC 336, 213 & tEE Irc & 59 (i) of FSSA 270 & 271 tPC & 2V2) rlw '7(2\ of COTPA 272 & 273 IPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA 272, 273 & 328 tPc &.20 (t) & 7 (3) ofCOTPA 270&273 rPC -do- Nature ofoffence Tralsportatioo of Amber !obacco Sale ofbanned tobacco f,mducts Sale o f gutkay'tobacco illegally in godown Possession ofgurka /tobacco in pan shop Transportation of prchabited eutka Possessioo oftobacco products in the house Possession of banned gutka & other tobacco items in pan shop Transportatioo and sale ofprohibited tobacco products Transporadon of tobacco products Stomge oftobacco products for sale Purchase and sale of prohibited tobacco products Transportation of banned tobacco/gutka Possession ofbanned tobacco products KL-J Crl-P- No I 52 of 2020 & barch \ 3 A1 &2 accused A.t &2 Al to3 accused l4 l5 l6 t1 It l9 20 2t 4241/2t 6llll of PS Town Adilabad l0l2l of PS I To\vn Adilabad 90/: I of PS I Town Adilabad 9l121 of PS I Town Adilabad l0l/21 of PS I Town Adilabad 425 t/21 4258121 42',71t2r I r 62,21 of Ps Abdullapurmet 44A5Dl 44t5t1l 20-l2l of PS I Town Nal 2llzl of PS I T Nalgonda 22 454r21 87121 of PS m (Tr Kothasudem J At &2 'do 'do- -do- -do- 'do- t88, 212, 213 & t28 rPC 188, 272 & 273 tPc -do t88,269,270, 271 tlw 34 IPC & 3ofEDA&51 (b) ofDMA I 2l 21 2: 26 225121 of PS Nirmal Town 8910 of PS Marnada 186/21 of PS 4615/1t 1640t2t 468ti2l 4121t2t | 64121 of PS Adibatla 21 I 4',775/2t 214/21 of PS I -I 4825t21 245/2 t of PS Khammam R At &2 270 &273 tPC -do- r/w 14 IPC 328 tlat 5ll, 272 & 2'13 tPC 270, 212 & 213 IPC & 20 (2) of COTPA 328,2'12, 271 & 188 tPC 328, 270 & 273 lw 511 IPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA A2 A2 Al lo4 At &2 Possession of banaod gutka prDducts Sale ofgutka and tobacco products About to n'ansport ooxious gutka and tobacco products Sale ofbanned gutka and tobacco product: .'iransportation of gutka and lobacco products_ Sale of banocd toba.co (tambaku) producLs in Iorry Traosportation o f gutka./tobacco products Possession of banned gu*a /tobacco products I I I Possession oftobacco I nroducs ia kiraaa shop I Possession of prchibited tobacco poducts for sale Transportation of banocd tobacco/gutka pockets Possession of bamed gulka & tobacc,, products in kirana stlop Transponatio[ of cigarette or other tobacco products wirhout i alid liccnse Sale of gutka & khaini

Tiaasportatioa of bafircd I 29 l0 3r 32 14 f5 1 t 62120 5826n0 l49E/21 3500/2r l5l5/ l9 of I.AIMFC. 2724/19 of /i\,11 ACMM, Hvd. t5r8/t9 of I.AJMFC, Warangal 4737/lE of XI AMM, Sec.bad Special Magistratc of II Class, Jagtial 216n0 of JFCM. Deva.konda 963/19 of JFCM, Miryalguda CALENDAR CASES

270. 273 & I8E. 420 IPC & 58 ofFSSA 272 & 273 IPC & 59 of FSSA, 2006 420, 270 & 273 IPC & 58 ofFSSA 272,273, 336 & 420 tPC & 20 (2) of COTPA A2 A3 A2 Trdtportation of bao[ed zada products Sale of zarda illegally Transportatioo of banned zarda Sale ofprohibited gurkr and chewing tobacco products At &2 188, 270 & 273IPC Transportation of Amber gutka pockets At &2 420 IPC & 273 Sale ofbanncd iobeco and gutka products Al to4 420 & 273 tPC & 20 (ii) of corPA.2ool I Transportation of tobac(, and gutka products 4 KI-J Crl.P. No.lt2of2020 & batch 45A20 of UVMMC, tbmiimpatan I Al &2 35 t4l21 61A19 of xxv MMc. AlloE r6 1'l l8 r9 ,10 I I I I I I 4070/2t 4rI0/2r 4fi9/21 I 4l 4140/2 t 42 4l -1'1 1178t2) 42t6t2l 15 4730/2t

46. 4t6tnt 4'7 48 49 46t2/2t 4622t2t I 463)l2l 547D1 of PJMFC, Gajwel 509D0 of Spl.PCR Mobile Court-cum- JMFC, Adilabad 512/20 of Spl.PCR Mobile Court-cum- JMFC, Adilabad sTc No.202l of IV AMM. cum-[V AJCJ, L.B. Nasar 810/21 of IAJMFC, Khammam 6t67Dl of xvl ACMM, Nampally l298nl of PJMFC, Kiarnmam 829n1 of PJMFC, Kiainmam l0t,2l of AJMFC, Asifabad 513/20 of AJ[,,IFC, Nirmal 622119 of 4J1!fC, Nirmal 413120 of AJMFC, Nirmal 188, 270 & 213 tPC, 20 (2)of CoTPA, 3ofEDA& 5l (b) of DMA t88, 270, 273 & 420 tPC & 20 (2) of COTPA 272 & 273 rPc & 20 (2) rlw 1 (21 of COTPA 270 & 213 rPc & 20 (2) rlw 7 (2\ of COTPA 270,271,272 & 273 rlw 34 IPC Sec.3 ofEDA 272 & 211 IPC & Sec.20 (l), 20 (2) oa COTPA 270 & 2'73 tPC & 20 (2) ofCOPTA 188,272 & 273 IPC & 20 (2't & 5 of COTPA 270 & 273 rPc & 20 (2) of COTPA l l I l ] Storage ofbanned gutka and othcr tobacco prcducts illegally for sale Supply of gitdand othcr tobacco products Tmnsportation of Amber tobacco Transportat ron ofpan masala and banned gu&a Transportation ofcotton seeds and banned gutka Transportation of bamed tobacco and gutka Purchase and sale ofbatned gutka Sale o[ tobacco producls in his shop and disobeying the rules irnposed by Govt. ir Not.No.505FSS-1,21 dt.6. 1.2 I Transportalion of Amber gulka A1 &2 Alto5 AIto4 Al &2 accused I At &2 At &2 -do- Transportation of gutka/pan masala At &2 ?70 &273 rPC PossessioD of tobacco products illegally for sale Sole accused At &2 A] -do- -do- Purchase and sale ofprohibited guka pockets Possession of gutka packets at bus stand for sale illeSally -do- r/* 34 tPc &20 (2') of COTPA Traasportation of banned tobacco products I

2. Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, Mr. Gajanand Chakavarthy, Mr. K. Surender, Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Ms. P. Radhika, 5 KL.J Crt-P. No.l52 of2020 & btch Mr. Srinivas Reddy [lalakisti, Ms. C' Sunitha Kumari, Mr' Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Mr. S.M. Subhan, Ms' N' Arthi, Mr' Y' Bala Murali' Mr. Boggula Raju, Mr. S. Chandrasekhar, Mr' V' Yadukrishna Sainath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective petitioners and.learned Public I'rosecutor appearing on behalf of respondents - State.

3. The question involved in all the above matters is one and the same and, therefore, thc same are disposed ofby way ofthis common

4. The main allegations against the petitioners - accused are that they were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned products viz., lobacco / tambaku / gUka I khairl I zarda I pan masala respectively. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections - 188, 270, 269,271,272' 273,328, 336 & 420 read with 34 and 5l I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'); Sections - 20 (l),20 (2) and 5 read with 7(2) and 7 (3) ol the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce' Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'COTP Act'); Sections - 58 and 59 ofrhe Food Safety and Standards Ac! 2006 (for short'FSS Act'); Section - 3 ofthe Epidemic Diseases Acq 1897 (for short'ED Act') and Section - 5l (b) of the Disaster Management Act,2005 (for short DS Act) resPectivelY. L 6 KLJ Crl.P. No-152 of2020 & barch

5. The respective leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the above criminal petitions would submit that the contents of complaint I charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused. For the offences-under the provisions of FSS Act, only Food Safety Oflicer is having power to initiate criminal proceedings against accused and the police are not having any power to register a case for the offences under the provisions of FSS Act. There is no inducement by the petitioners and, therefore, offence under Section - 420 of IPC does not arise. According to them, the contents of complaint / charge sheet are also lacking the ingredients ofthe offences under Sections - 269,270,271, 272,273,328 and 336 ofIPC, i) According to them, there is no violation of Sections - 20 (l), 20 (2) and 5 read with 7 (2) ad 7 (3) of the COTP Act. The Investigating Officers / Complainants without following the procedure taid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), have registered the cases for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC and laid charge sheet against the accused. Necessary ingredients to attract the provisions of Section - 3 of the ED Act and Section - 5l (b) of the DM Act are lacking in the complaint / charge sheet. ii) With the above said submissions, the respective leamed counsel sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crimes / calendar cases. ,7 KL.J C.l P. No.l52 o12020 & htch

6. On the other hand, leamed Pubtic Prosecutor referring to the principle laid down in the State of Maharashtra v. Salyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanl b1'the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao v. The State of Maharashtra2 and Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia y. The State of Maharashtra3 by the Bombay High Court would submit that police are having power to register .cases under various provisions of IPC, COTP Act, ED Act and DM Act. There is no irregularity in registering crimes, seizing material including the vehicles and laying charge sheet against respective accused in the aforesaid crimes / calendar cases. According to him, the accused were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned products vz., tobacco / tambaku / gttka / khaini / zarda / pan masala respectively. According to him, the accused have to face either investigation or trial and prove their innocence, and instead of doing so, they have filed the present criminal petitions under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. which cannot be considered at this stage. i) With the above said submissions, learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the above criminal petitions.

7. In view of the above rival submissions, it is apposite to extract the relevant provisions of IPC, COTP Act, FSS Act, ED Act and DM Act, which are as under: 2018 ArR (SC) 5348 2016 Cri. L.J.2401 2019 SCC Ooline Bom 1857 8 KLJ Crl-P. No.l52 of 2020 & batch RELEVANT PRO\.ISIONS LINDER IPC '188. Disobedience to order duly promdgated by public servant.-Whoever, knowing rhat, by an order proBulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take cte{hio order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or teuds to cause obstructiou, annoyaece or injury. or risk of obstructioo, aunoyance or injury. to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a terrn wbich may extend to one mooth or with lure which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term u,hich may extend to six mooths, or with hne which may extend to one thousand rupees, or wrth both. Explatration--It is not necessary that the offeuder should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufFrcietrt that he knows ofthe order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. fllustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain stre€t. A knowingly disobeys the ordeq and thereby causes danger ofriot. A has comminedthe offence defined in this section." "269. Negligent sct likely to spread iDfectiotr of disease dangerous to life.-Wtoever unlawfu[y or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reasou to believe to be, likely t6 spread the infection of any disease datrgerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonmeot of either description for a term which may extend to six mouths, or with fine, or with both." '270. Malignant act likely to spread iufectioD of disease datrgerous to life. rnalignantly does any act which -Whoever I 9 KL.J Crl-P. No.lJ2 o12020 & botcl is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likety to spread the infectroo of any disease dangerous to tife' shall be punished with imprisonmeot of either description for a term which may extend to two years' or with fiue, or with both " "271. Disobedience to quarantine rule.-Whoever howingly disobeys any rute made and promulgated by the Government for puttiog asy vessel into a state ofquaraotine, or for regulatiog the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vess€ls. or for regulating th€ intercourse betwe€n places where alr infectious disease prevails and other places, shatl be punished with imprisonment of either description for a tenn which may exteod to six months, or with fine, or with both." "272. Atlulteration of food or driDk irtended for sale-- Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such anicle noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likety that the same will be sotd as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may exteod to one thousand rupees, or with both." "273. Sale of noxious food or drink.-Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale. as food or drink, any article which has beeo rendered or hirs become noxious, or is in a state uoFrt for food or drin! knowing or having reason to believe that the sarte is nox- ious as food or drhh shall be punished with imPrisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six mooths, or with frne which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." "32E. Ca-using hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.-Whoever administers to or causes to be takea by an1' person any poison or any stuperying, i[roxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commissioo of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hun, shatt be punished with imprisonment of l0 KL.J C.t- P. No. I 52 of Z0 20 & tutch either description for a term which may extend to ten years, aod shall also be liable to fine." "336. Act endangering Iife or personal safety of others.- Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to d[ee months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both." "420. Cheating and dishotrestly induciog delivery of property.-Wloever cheats and thereby dishouestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable securiry, or arything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being convened into a valuabl€ security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may exteod to seveo years, and shall also be liable to fine." "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intetrtion.-WteD a criminal act is dooe by several persons in furtherance of the commoo inteotion of all, each ofsuch persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." "511. Puuishment for attempting to commit offetrces punishable wilb iEprisoomeot for life or other imprisoument.-Whoever attempts to commit atr offeoce punishable by ihis Code with imprisonment for tife or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such at&Bpt doos any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the piinishment of such anempt, be punished with imprisonmeot of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisooment for life or, as the case may be, ooe-halfof the longest term of imprison- ment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both." KI.J C.l.P. No.l52 of2020 & batch RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER COTP ACT "5. Prohibition of advertisemetrt of cigrrett€s and other tobscco products.l l) No persou engaged in, or purportcd to be engaged in the production, supply or distribution ofcigarettes or any othq tobacco products shall advertise and no p-e1son having contlol over a medium shall cause to be advertised cigarettes or aly other tobacco products through that medium and oo person shall take pafl in any advertisement which directly or itrdirectly suggests or promotes the use or consumption of cigarettes or any other tobacco products- (2) No person, for any direct or indirect pecuniary benefit, shall- (a) display, cause to display, or permit or authorise to display any advertisement ofcigarettes or any other tobacco product, or (b) se[[ or cause to sell, or permit or authorise to sell a film or video tape containing advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (c) distribute, cause to distribute, or permit or authorise to distribute to the public any leafle! hand-bill or document which is or which contains an advertis€ment of cigarenes or any other tobacco product; or (d) erect, exhibit. fix or rctain upon or over any laad, building, wall, hoarding. frame, post or stsucture or upon or in any vehicle or shall display in aay manner whatsoever in any place any advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in relation to- (a) an advenisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco producr in or on a package containing cigarett€s or any other tobacco product; ft) advertisement of cigarEttes or any other tobacco product which is displayed at the entranco or inside a warehouse or a shop where cigarettes and any other tobacco products are offered for distribution or sale. (3) No person, shall, under a contracl or otherwise promote or agree to promote the use or consumption of- (a) cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (b) any tr-ade mark or brand name of cigarettes or any other tobacco product in exchange for a sponsorship, gift, prize or scholarship given or agreed to be given by another person." "20. Punishment for failure to give specified warning aad nicotine and tar cotrtents.- (l)Any person who produces or manufactures cigarettes or tobacco producb, whiah do not contain, either on the package or / l I I t2 KLJ Crt.? No. t 52 of 2020 & batch on their tabel, the specified waming and the nicotine and tar cont€nts, shall in the case of Fust conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with frne which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both, and for the second or subsequent conviction, with hlprisoDment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand .upees. (2) Any person who sells or diskibutes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their tabet, the specified waming and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the case of hrst convictioo be punishable with imprisooment for a tenn, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees! or with both, and, for the second or subsequeot conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees." "7. Restrictions on trad€ and commerce in, and Productiotr, supply and distributioD of cigarettes and other tobacco products.- (l) No person shalt, directly or iadirectly, produce, supply or distribute 6 cigarettes or any other tobacco producls unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him bears thereon, or on ils tabel such specilted waming including a pictorial waming as may be prescrib€d. (2) No person shall carry oo trade or commerce in cigarettes or atry other tobacco products unless every package ofcigarettes or ary other tobacco products sold, supplied or distributed by him bears thereon, or on its [abel, the specified waming. (3) No person shatl import cigareftes or any other tobacco products for distributioq or supply for a valuable consideration or for sale in India unless every package of cigarettes or aoy other tobacco products so imported by him bears [hereon, or on its labet, the specified wamiag. (4) The specified waming shall appear on oot less than one of the largest panels ofthe package itr which cigareftes or any other t3 KLJ Ctl P. No.lt2 of 2020 & bdnt tobacco products have been packed for distribution, sale or supply for a valuable cousideration' (5) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, supply or distribute cigarettes or any other tobacco products uoless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him indicates thereoo. or on its l5bel, the uicoti-oe and tar contents on each cigarette or as the case may be on other tobacco products along with the maximum permissibte limits thereoi Provided that the nicotine and tar contents shall ot exceed the maximum permissible quatrtity thereof as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act'" RELEV ANT PRO\ IS NS ER F.S.S. Act: '5t- Penalty for co[traventions for which no specific peoalty is provided.-Whocver contravenes auy provisions of tiis Act or the rules or regulations made thereuoder, for the cootravention of which no penalty has been separately provided io this Chapter, shalt be liable to a penalty which may exteud to two lakh mpees." "59. Punishment for unsafe food.-Afly person who, whether by himself or by aoy other persou on his behalf, manufactures for sale or slores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,- (i) where such failure or cotrtravention does not result- in iojury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six mooths and also with Fme which may extend to one lakh rupees: (ii) where such failure or contraventioo results in a non-grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fioe which may extend to three lakh rupe€sl (iii) wherd such failure or conEaveutioo results in a grievous injury, with rmprisonmeot for a term which may extend to six years and also with fine which may extend to frve lakh rupees; (iv) where such failure or contravention results il death, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisortlnent for life and also with fine which shall oot be less than ten lakh rupees." 14 Crl P- No.l52 of 2020 & botch / ITELEVANT PROVISION UNDER E.D. ACT: "3. P€nslty. Any person disobeying any regulation or order made uuder this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under sectioo 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 )." RELEVANT PROVISION TJNDER D.M. ACT: "51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.- (1) Whoever, without reason4ble cause- (l) Whoever, without reasonable cause-" (a) obstructs any officer or employee ofth€ Central Govemment or the State Govemment, or a person authorised by the National Authority or State Autho.ity or District Authority in the discharge ofhis functions under this Act; or (b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Cantral Govemment or the State Govemment or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be puuishable with imprisonmelt for a term which may extend to one year or with hne, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with dfuections results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall oo coovictioo be punishable with imprisotrment for a term which may extend to two years. [otes on clauses Clauses 5l to 58 (Secs. 5l to 58) seeks to lay down what will constitute au offence in terms of obstruction of the fuuctions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of false waming, failure of an officer to perform the duty imposed on him under the Act without due permission or lawful excuse, or his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide for penalties for these offences."

8. The /is involved in the present petitions is no more res integra. A leamed Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State ofTelangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana4 had an occasion to deal with the issues involved in the present criminal petitions. After referring to various provisiom of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts o. c'|.P. No.373l of20l8 & batctL decided on 27.08.2018 l5 KL,J Crl P. No.l52 t2020 & batch in several judgments, the leamed Single Judge had framed the issues, which are as under: "l) Whether the respondent/ Sub-[nspector of Police, is competent to investigate into the offence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(l) of FSS Act? 2) Whether the pctitioners in all the petitiom are found commiuing any act with malicious 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 anicle which has been rendered or has become noxious or is in a state unfit for food or drilk or reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink? If so, are they liable to be proceeded for the offence punishable uoder Sections 2?0 arLd 273 IPC.?"

9. After an elaborate discussion and on consideration of various aspects, the leamed Single Judge has held that the police cannot take cognizance of the offence, to investigate into and fite charge sheet against the accused therein for the offence punishable under Sections - 5.1 and 59 (1) of FSS Act, as they were not empowered under the said Act to launch the prosecution, but only Food Safety 0fficer appointed by the Govemment alone is competenr to launch prosecutidn for those two offences. With the said findings, the leamed Single Judge has quashed the proceedings where the offences are under Sections - 54 and 59 of FSS Act initiated by the police.

10. In the I ery same judgment, the leamed Single Judge further held that chewing robacco and khaini are not the .food, within the definition ofSection - 3O olthe FSS Act and the manufacture, sale or 16 KL.J Crl.P. No 152 o12020 & batch / exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is governed by the provisions of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the provisions of IPC. The / respondents - police are ircompetent to investigate the of'fence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (1) of the FSS Act and allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the statements do not disclose the commission ofthe offence punishable under Section - 273 of IPC since kansportation 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 account of transportation and if those products are 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 - 270 of IPC. Pan Masala is not a tobacco product to fall within the purview of COTP Act. Therefore, the provisions of the COTP Act have no application, thereby registration of crime on the ground of violation of Sections - 7 (1) {2) (3) (5) and Section - 26 of COip. Act is an illegality. The leamed Single Judge further held that registration of cases for the offence under Section - 20 (2) 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. t1 KL,J Crl- P. No. t 52 of 2020 & batct

11. In Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasadhi Tripati Rao v. The State ofAndhra Pradeshs, a leamed Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaral'ti had also an occasion to deal with the said issue. After refcrring to the contentions ofthe relpective parties therein, various prorisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and relying on the principle taid down in Auand Ramdhani Chaurasia3' Joieph Kurian v. State of Kerala5, Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr, IWs. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd', v' State of U'P'7' Sanjay Anjay Stores v. Union of India8, Boop Singh Tyagi v' Statee, State of Harl-ana v. Bhajan Lalro and Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the leamcd Single Judge has quashed the FIRs / Calendar Cases. The learned Single Judge referring to the law laid down in Chidurala Shvamsubdera held that despite the said authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues The said judgment attained finality. Even then, the police are registering cases against accused on the very same allegations for the very same offences i) Referring to ihe provisions of Sections - 153, 188, 269'270' 271,272, 273, 284. 328, 353 of IPC, the learned Judge in Sri Jaganath Enterprisess held that the offences registered under the said Sections are nol maintainable. It further held that the provisions of the COTP Act can only be pressed into service in the limited

5. 2o2o (r) ALT (crl.) 215 (APHC) 5. 1995 (t) scJ 277 7. 20t t (2) Crimes 250 3. 2017 scc online cal l612l e 2M2ct1.LJ.2872 '0. 1992 supp ( I ) sCC -13 5 I t8 KL-J Crl.P. No.l52 of2020 & tutch circumstances only where there is violation ofSections - 4,5,6,7 and l0 of the COTP Act. By referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lall0 and M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pr.t) Ltd.7, the leamed Single Judge has qiashed the proceedings in various crimes / calendar cases.

12. Another learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in V. Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradeshrrhad also an occasion to deal with the said issue and agreed with the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera.

13. In Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr, 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 and.328 of IPC and Sections - 26 and 30 of the 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 ofthe 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. ". 2020 supr€me (AP) 348 'l I l9 KLJ Ctt-P- No.l52 of 2020 &. batch

14. ln 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 cases are transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchage of banned products vrz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini I zarda /pan masala etc., respectively. tn Chidurata Shyamsubdera, the learned Single observed that transportation ol chewing tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section - 270 of IPC and that manul)cturing ofpan masala is not included in Section - 273 of IPC and, thcrefore, the same is not an offence since it is not a noxious food. The leamed Single Judge has further observed in the said judgment which is as under: "....The act done by the petitioDers i.e., transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco though dangerous to human life, it would not spread or infect or cause any disease on account of transportation and if those products are consumed by human being, it would certainly cause damage to the health. Therefore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco is not by itself is not an offence u:nder Section - 270 of IPC and it would fall within Section 270 of IPC."

15. Section - 272 of IPC makes punishable an offeuce by a person, who adulterates any article of food or drink. Therefore, the said section would only come into play if food or drink is adulterated. There is no definition of 'adulteration' in IpC. The dehnition of 'adulterant' is found in the provisions of the FSS Act. Section - 3 (l) I // / / 20 KL.! Crt.P. No. I t2 of 2020 & batch (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulteranf 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 only the offence would be attracted. Whereas, as discussed supra, the allegation in the present batch of cases is with - regard to, transportation, possession' t storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz-, tobacco / tambaku I gttka I khaini / 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 Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raou.

16. In Joseph Kurian6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for Section - 272IPC 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 accused 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 driak and knew that such article cannot be sold as food or drhk. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the offence is completed on the introduction of the adulterant. 'Adulterant'' would mean that a matfiial which is mixed to make the 'food' unsafe or drink unsafe. In the present case on hand' tobacco is not a food or i 2t KL,J C.I.P No.l52 o12020 & barch drink and what is stated to be mixed in it is not clearly established by any cogent material as an 'adulterant' for the offence under Section _ 272 IPC to be pressed inro service.

17. As far as Section - 32g of IpC is concerne,( in the same judgment it was held as follows: "10. In order to p.ove offence uuder Sectiou 32g the prosecutioD is required to prove thar the substance in questioo was a poison, or any stupefring, intoxicating or unwholesome drug etc, that the accused administered the substance to the coEplahant or caused the complainant to take such substaace, that hc did so with inteat to cause hun or howing it to be likety 19 that he would thereby cause hurt, or with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence. It is, therefore, essenrial for the prosecution to prove that the accused was directly responsible for administering poison etc. or causing it to be taken by any persou, through another.......,' Tobacco does not fit into this definition

18. Section - 273 of IpC deals with sale ofa 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 nodous, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe thit 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 v/hich has become noxious or is in a state ol 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 Enterprisess, the word .noxious, is not defined in / // 22 KLJ C .P. No.l52 of2020 & batch IPC or in FSS Act. As per the dictiouary meaning, the word 'noxious' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As stated above, the allegation in the entire batch of present criminal petitions is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale and prfrchase of banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini I zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the c'6ntents of the complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingledients of Section - 273 of IPC.

19. As far as section - 188 IPC is concemed , as per the settled law on the subject, before an accused is charged, there must be; an order duly promulgated by the public servant; the public servant must have the lawfut 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 Tyagie a Division Bench of Allahabad 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 Safety alone has lhe authority to pass-the orders only if the article of'food' can causes danger or is injurious to health. 23 KL,J C,l.P. No.I52 oI2020 & tntct

20. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorrz while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, the leamed Single Judge of the combined High Court of Andbra Pradesh held as under: --t I '5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contraqr to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting orly at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 186l could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Policc of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is $anted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (l) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the comptaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concemed or some other person to whom such a public scrvant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizatrce of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub. Inspector of Police, who could not have been thc -authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation ofthe mandatory provision of Section 195(t [a) of Code of Criminal procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequeDce to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code atrd is not an u. C.imind Peririon No.5-123 of2009. decided on 17.09.2009 I 24 KL.J C.LP. No.l52 of2020 & batch independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concemed, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary gullty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under tndian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (l) (a) ofCode of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. As the complaint has failed due to its 7) unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety hav6 to. fait, though the I't accused alone approache{ this Court by way of this Criminal Petition-"

21. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v, The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari Districtr3, wherein by relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Raor2 and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan LalI0 more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that rr. Criminal Petition No.15248 of20l6, decided on 26.10.2016 I l I 1-- l I I 25 KLJ C.l.P. No.l52 o12020 & ba,ch where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concemed Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and,/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or $e concemed Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress 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 also 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 ofSection - 195 (l) (a) olCr.P.C.

22. Y ide Notification No.50l/FSS-1/2020, dated 06.01.2020, the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana Directorate of Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, restricted the manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation and sale of gutka / pan masala, which contains tobacco and nicotine, as ingredients and chewiug tobacco products, tike chap tobacco, pure tobacco, khaini, kharra, scented tobacco / flavoured tobacco or by whatever name locally it is called packed in sachets / pouches / package in the entire Stage of Telangana under FSS Act,2006. It is for one year. Vide Notification No.505/FSS- 1/2021, dated 06.01.2021, the same was extended for one more year. As per the information fumished and instructions received, several writ petitions were filed challenging the said 26 KL.J Ctl-P. No.l52 of 2020 & botch Notifications before this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A Division Bench of this Court declined to entertain some writ petitions on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court seized ofthe said issue. It is also relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded back the matter to this Court. Therefore, such a notification can only be issued for emergency situations and for prohibiting the ' distribution and sale of any article of a food cannot be tost sight of. Jherefore, in view ol the law laid down in the above judgments including the judgments in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raolr. According to this Court, Section - 188 of IPC will not attract to the allegations leveled against the petitioners herein in this batch of criminal petitions.

23. As far as Section - 328 of IPC is concemed, it deals with causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence. As per the said provision, whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefuing, intoxicating l or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished wit[ imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, there should be administering poison, intoxicating etc., with intent to cause hurt to such person or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will 27 c,t.P. No. r s2 ol 2o2o & [!j thereby cause hurr. As stated above, the allegations in the entbe babh of criminal petitions are lacking. Therefore, according to this Coun, the contents of the complaints / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of Section - 328 ot-IpC.

24. As far as Section - 336 of IpC is concemed, it deals with an act endangering life or personal safety of others, and as per which, whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with impris- onment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which 6ay extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both. In the complaints / charge sheets, there is no such allegadon of rash and negligent act which endangers human Iife or personal safely of others. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaints / charge sheets racks the ingredients of Section - 336 ollpC

25. As far as Section _ 420 oflpC is concerned, it deals wirh Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. There is no such inducement either at the inception or at a later stage. Thus, the contents of complaints / charge sheet lack the ingredients of Section - 420 of IPC.

26. As,far as Section - 269 of IpC is concemed, it deals with negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life, and as per which, whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act I I 28 , crt P. No.t52 ot 2o2o a tc which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the inGction ofany disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or wirh both. But, a perusal of the contents of compraints / charge sheets in the present batch of cases, such ingredients are lacking and, therefore, Section - 269 ofIpC does fiot arise in the present batch of cases.

27. Ia view of the above said discussion, according to this Court, transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of tobacco products are not totally banned in the State of Telangana and also in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sections - 269, 270, 271,272 and 273, 328, 336 and 420 of IpC are atracred to rhe cases in this batch.

28. As lar as the offences under FSS Act is concemed, as already discussed above, in Chidurata Shyamsubdera, the learned single Judge folowing the guidelines laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lalro held that the police are incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (1) of the FSS Ac! investigating into the offences along with other offences under the i.ovisions of the IpC. It was further held that filing charge sheet is a grave illegaliry, as the Food Safety Oflicer alone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet following the Rules laid down under Sections - 4l and 42 of FSS Act. In the present case, the police have registered the crime for the offences 29 KL,J Crl.P. No-152 of2020 & btch under Sections - 188. 270 and 273 of IPC. Therefore, in the present batch ofcases, entertaining the complaints / filing the charge sheets by the police is contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera.

29. With regard to the offences under COTP Act, it is relevant to mention the objects and the. reasons of the said Act itseli clearly state that the act is meant to prohibit the advertisement of, and to provide for the regulation of trade and cornmerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, cigarettes and other tobacco products and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. A reading of the said objects of the said Act would reveal 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 witil prohibition of advertisement of cigarette and other tobacco products only. No person, who is engaged in the production, supply or distribution ol cigarettes or other products shall advertise the same. Simil [y, ns person having the control over a medium can advertise cigarettes or tobacco products, and no person shall be a part of any advertisement.

30. Section - 7 of the COTP Act deals with the imposition of restriction on the sale, trade, commerce of tobacco products unless 30 KL.J Crl-P. No.152 of 2020 & batch every package of cigarette or tobacco product contains a specified waming (pictorial or otherwise). Section - 4 of rhe COTp Act, bans smoking in public places. In addition, Section - 6 of the COTP Act, prohibits the sale of cigarettes or other tobacco products to a person who is under the age of 18 years are in an area within 100 yards of any educational institution.

31. A reading of this Act, particularly Sections - 4, 5, 6 and 7 clearly shows that there is no general ban or general prohibition on the manufacture/sale oftobacco products. 22 What is barred is merely the sale of these products to a person, who is below the age of 18 years and in an area within 100 yards of an educational institution. The other aspects covered by Sections - 5 atd 7 of the COTP Act, deal with the advertisement and the waming, which is to be contained on a package, in which the tobacco product is packed. This is a regulatory mechanism only. Therefore, according to this Court, the above said allegations of transportatiorL possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned tobacco products will not attract the offence under Section -7 of the COTP Act.

32. As far as Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act is concemed, as stated above, 'thb allegations against the petitioner in respective complaints / charge sheets are that they were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned tobacco products to the customers illegally in order to gain wrongful profits. In view of the said allegation, it is apt to refer to Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act I 31 KL.J C P. No.152 of2020 & tutch .l for better appreciation ofthe case and to decide the issue in questioq and the same is as under: "20. PuBishment for failure to give specified rvaraing ard nicotine and trr contents.- (t)... (2) A-ny penon who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do trot contain either on the package or on their [abel, the specified waming and the nicotine and tar cootents shatl in the case of first conviction be punishabte with imprisooment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to oqe thousand rupees, or u.ith both, and, for the second or subsequeot convictioo, with imprisooment for a term which may extend to two years and with irne which may extend to tlrree thousand rupees."

33. Thus, Section - 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified waming and nicotine and tar contents. But, in the complaints / charge sheets, there is no allegation against the petitioners that they were carrying on trade or commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified waming on the said products. [n view of the same, th€ contents of the complaints / charge-sheets lack the ingredients of Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act. Even, there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain labels with statutory waming. Thus, registering the crimes for the said offence against the petitioners is not only contrary to Section - 20 (2) ofCOTP Act, but also contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubde/. In view of the same, the offence under Section - 20 (2) of COTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree with the 32 RLJ C .P No 152 of 2020 & batch principle laid down by the learned'Single Judges ofthe High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raorr.

34. For the foregoing discussion and the authoritatiye principle of law, Criminal Petition Nos. 3768' 3879, 4M6, 4077, 4098' 4099' 4too, 4102, 4141, 4151, 4157, 4182, 4187, 424't, 4249' 4251' 4258, 4262, 4277, 4405, 4415, 4542, 4615, 4640. 4681. 4727' 477 5 and 4825 of 2O2l are allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners therein in the respective crimes mentioned therein' Since the proceedings in the aforesaid Criminal Petitions are quashed against the- respective petitioners, the respective Station House Officers / tnvestigating Oflicers are hereby directed to retum the seized property / vehicles on proper identification and verification of ownership under due acknowledgment.

35. Further, Criminal Petition Nos. 152, 153,155' 162 & 5826 of 2020,3498,3500,3509, 3514, 4070, 4ll0' 4119, 4140, 4178, 4194, 4216, 4230., 4361, 4612, 4622 md 4632 oi 2021 are also allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners therein in the respective Calendar Cases mentioned therein' Since the proceedings are quashed, the respective petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate applications before the concemed Magistrate for retum of the seized property / vehicle and the Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law. 33 KL.J OI.P. No.l52 of 2020 & & ct As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed. l 05m JULY,2o2l Not;: L.R. copy to be marked. @/O.) Mgr K. LAKSHMAI{, J