Gangavaram Ramu @ G N Ramu v. The State of Telangana

and nicotine and tar contents.- (2) Any person toho sells or distibutes cigarettes or tobarco products tuhich do not contoin wither on tlrc package or on their label, tlrc specified utarning and the nicotine and tar contents slnlt tn co.se of first conuiction be punislwbte tdth impri"sonment for a term, uthich mag extend to one Aear, or with fine which mag extend to one ttausand rupees, or uith botly and, for the second or subsequent conuiction, uith impr:santznt for a tertn uhich mag ertend tct tu,o Aear; (Lttc toith fine uhich may ertend to tLr(.e thou:;and t upees." 6 A The lis .nvl,lled in the present petition is no mc,re I es integra. learned SirLgl r: Judge of the High Court of JtLd icature at Hyderabad for :l r, State of Telangana and the Stirte of Andhra Pradesh in Clidltrala Shgamsubd.er as. State of Telanqanat nad an occasion tt d<::r with the issues involved in th. prese t criminal petition. After rele rring to various provisions of ipC, ,lO,l,p Act and a-lso the prir.rciple laid down by the Apex Court arrd crther High Courts in sever al j'rdgments, the learned Single Judple had framed the issues, lvhLi<:h;r-e as under: " 1) Wh --t h : r the respondent/ Sub-Inspector of Police , i:, lompetent to investigate into the offenc e pnreishable under Sections 5-4 and 59(1) ol I)-a Si Act? 2) Whelirrr the petitioners in all the petitions are frrr:ncl :ommitting any act with malicious intenlion, ,r ith knowledge and reason to belie ve that s;uc: zLct likely to spread the infection of any d s,:rrs: dangerous to life? And whether the petitic'n:;'; selling or offering or exposing lbr sale e.s :ir,r I or drink, any article which has been :enctr:r'ed or has become noxious is in a state rrrLfl - ftr food or drink or reason to beiieve that tlte sillre is noxious as food or drink? If so, t Crt.P.No.373l of 201,1 C,: irru:lr decided on 27.0g.2018 re*ft{rr$ffiMrufiffiE I i I I ,] 6 '4, are they liable to be proceeded for the offence punishable under Sections 270 and 273IPC'?' In the very same judgment, the learned Single Judge further Z. held that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the 'lood' within the definition of Section 3 (1') 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 ald so also the provisions of IPC' The respondents-Police are incompetent to investigate the offence 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 of the offence punishable under Section - 273 of IPC since transportation of noxious food is not included under Sectio n 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 Sectio n 27O 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 registrationofcrimeonthegroundofviolationofSections-7(||(2) 1 (3) (5) arrd St:c[iclI,t 26 of CoTP Act is an illegality. The. learned Single Judge further ]rel1 that registration of cases for ther oflence under Section 20 (2) r':-ad, with 7 (2) of COTP Act is illr:gal Wlth the said findings, the k:arned Single Judge has quashtd the '':rimes and calendar cases; i.:t :he said judgment.

8. In "Sn .Iaoanath Enterltrises Eluru Vasqndhi ''l'ripati Rao as. The State oJ' Andhra Pradesi-"2, a learned lSinSJe 'rudge of the High Court c,f At-rChra Pradesh at Amaravati had also atl occasion to deal with the ,sejd issue. After referring to the cotltertion of the respective p:rr[iers; therein, various provisions of IPC FSS:; Act, COTP Act and re1yirL6, ,rn the principle laid down in "Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia3, "il'cseph Kurian us. State of Kerala,"'4 " Sagged Hassan Sagge,C Subhanss, uM/s. Pepsico India Ho'ldings (htt) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P."6 usdniag Aniag Stores us Union of IndiaT , nBoe9t Singh Tyagi as. State"s "State of H'aryana os. Bhajan Lal'ry and Chidurala Shgamsubder (Supta 7)", the learned Singkr ,Jr-.dge has quashed the FlRs/Ca1en'1ar Cases. The learned Sin5de .I;dge referring to the law laid dorvrr in Chidurala t zozo 1t; aLT 1c..) llli t.PI{c) 3 2019 SCC Online B( n I l:;7 n tsss 1ty sct ztt ' 20l8 AIR (sc) 534E 6 20 I I (2) crimes 2 50 7 2017 SCC Onlire ca I i i i: 3 E 2ooz crt.LJ.z8l2 'q 1992 Supp (l) sc: :,3i 8 Shgamsulder (Supra 1) held that despite the said authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues' The said judgment attained linality. Even then, the police are registering cases against accused on the very same aliegations for the very same offences. g. It is further held that the provisions of the COTP Act can only be pressed into service in the limited circumstances only where there is violation of Sections-4.5.6.7 and 1O of the COTP Act. By referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal and M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Prrtf Ltd., the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings in various crimes/ calendar CASES

10. Another learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in "V.Nageswara Rao us. State of Andhra Pradesh"lo had also an occasion to deal with the said issue and agreed with the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubder (Supra 1).

11. In Sayyed Hassan Sayyed 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 hled challenging the registration of FIRs for the offences under Sections 188, 272,273 and 328 of IPC and Sections 26 and 'o 2020 Supreme (AP) 34&* .- ,I 9 30 of FSS A(rt rvl()re there is an allegation of trarsportation and sale of Gutka/Pzrrl \4asaLa etc., held that the judgme nt of Bcmbay High court is corLtt.zr:r to the provisions of the Act ar: d leLw lrrid down by it. With the srrl :inding, the Apex Court remitted the ntatter to the Bombay Hiqh ():urt for fresh consideration on the issue that whether the ef:ri said offences are made out in --he FIR's, which are subject matler rr'the cases pending before the Bombay IIigh Court' 12. In vieu' o1 the authoritative pronouncement of larv in the a-foresaid juClyn,:rts, as discussed above, coming to tl-rr facts of the cases on h trLrl, the allegations against the ac':ustrd i tr respective cases are tr arrst,rtrtation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned produ,:-r; viz., respectively. In Chidurala S hyamsubder (Supra 1), the lezrrned Single Judge observed that tran,;portation of chewing tolte,cr:o or khaini or pan masala do nct c;nstitute an offence pl.nirihzLble under Section 27O c'f LPC and that manufacturir g ol pal masa-la is not included in Se':tio:t' 273 of IPC and, theref<rr: tlte same is not an offence since it s nlt a noxious food. The 1,::.rn : C Single Judge has further observed in the said judgment rvhrch js as under: " I'l,.et act done bg the petitioners i. e . , tratsportation of khaini ond chewing tctbo cco though dangerous of human itfe, tt uttuld not spread or infect or casuc' anA i-rE&i8x8;;i::ati.i:tj:i.i:!a:,r..;.i.,1; I &a*ffiiEBiW-,-: l0 disease on account of transportation and if those products are consumed bg LLuman being, it rt-tould certainlg cause damage to tLe health Therefore, transportotion of khaini or cheuing tobacco is not bg itself is not an offence under Section - 270 of IPC and it uoutd fall uithin Section 270 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 defrnition of 'adulteration' in IPC. The definition 'adulterant' is found in the provisions of the FSS Act. Section - 3 (1) (a) of the FSS Act deais with 'aduiterant' which means a material which could make the 'food' unsafe or sub-standard or mis- brarrded. 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, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco/tambaku/ gutka / klrratni / zatda / par. manala 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 JudgesoftheHighCourtofAndhraPradeshinChidural(r l1 /a Shgamsubden (Slrpra 1), Sri Jaganath Enterprises (Supra 2) and V. Nagesutara Jlirro (Supra 10).

14. In Joseph Kurian (Supra 4), the Hon'ble Supremr Court held that for Secti r': .27 2-IPC to be attracted, the follorvinl:; should be --l z, the article involved was food an cl dr nl< meant to be present. (l ) consumed by 1.2: persons; (2) that the accused adtrltelated it and the adultera.-ion r:ndered it noxious as a food or drirrk'; (3) that the accused knr u a - the time of adulteration that he u,o'-rld sell the article as food cr rlrink arrd knew that such articl,-- cannc,[ be sold as food or drin k 'lt e Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly h e ld that the offence is corrLp [e[ed on the introduction of l.he adulterant 'Aduiterant' ,r'orrl,1 meal that a material which is mi_xecl r o make the 'food' unsaJe or Jrink unsafe. In the present case o1t hand, tobacco is not a fooc l- Jrink and what is stated to be m}:ed in it is not clearly estabris Lr,: j by any cogent material as an adlLlterant' for the offence unde- il,-'ction272 of IPC to be pressed into se rvice.

15. Section 2i.3 ol IPC deals with sale of a noxous foc,d or drink, and as per rl-lricrlr , rvhoever sells, or offers or exposes . br sale, as food or drinl.. any article which has been render.ed cr l..as become noxious, or is in z. state unfit for drink, knowing or havrnq reason to believe that tirr: srilrre is noxious as food or drink, shall b,: punished with imprisorrnr(-'r.r specihed therein. Therefore, if a pr:rson offers for 12 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 a-lso 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 mearing, the word 'noxious' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As stated above, the allegation in the criminal petition is with regard to transportation, possession, storege, sale and purchase of banned products tobacco/tambaku/gutka/kharni/ zarda/ pan masa-la viz etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section - 273 of IPC.

16. As far as Section-188 of IPC is concerned, 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 law{ul authority to promulgate the order, the person Routing the same should have knowledge about the order directing him to abstain from the act; he mint 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, Division bench of Allahabad High Court held that right to .:' 13 promulgate ttLe crdinance/order is also al issue whir:h is being raised, beceus,: -rnder the FSS Act, the Commissiorrer of Food Safety alone i- ar; ..he authority to pass the orders only il the article of 'food' carr cztlls( s danger or is injurious to healt-h

17. In "N."f. Ila.ma Rao tts. The State of A'P', re1;t bg Public Prosecutor"r; ,;rri1e dealing with the offences under Se::tions - 188 arld 283 of IPr,:. the learned Single Judge of the con bined High Court of Anrlhr=. F'radesh heid as under: ' 5) Euen if the ollegation that the peti'tioner .c t1'Tucted- public meetings at three road .1ur,-ctions contrary to the perrnission ac<'.orded .ior :on.ducting of a public meeting onlg at <nte :;1t'.-:,.fied place is tnte, such a direction under ,i<,.:ttor-t 3O of the Police Act, 7867 coulcl haue- sezn giuen onlg bg the Supeintendent or t,te -l,;sl.;fanl Supeintendent of Police of t'rc .)i.:; tict but not bg ang of their subordtnole's. .'f .; tchic permrbsion is granted under Section 3t, c'f the Police Ac| 1861 and is uiolated, )':ct on 195 (1) (a) of Code of Crimir al Dr,t:,zdure mandotes that the complctint in 'L t: regord has to be made bg the public ;<,.r .) 1nt concerned or some other to u.thtnn ;ucl . a public seruant i^s administratit'elA ;t ft r,rdinate to enable ang Court to take t>Tnizance of an offence under Section ,188 rr Criminal Petitur N o : -12 3 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 14 of Lake Criminal Procedure. In the present case, th.e charge sheet uas filed bg tLLe Sub Inspector of Police, who could not haue been the authoitg to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/ clnrge strcet is in uiolation of the mandatory proui.sion of Section 195 (1) 9o) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. That apart, the offence alleged to haue been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by tLrc petitioners and others is obuiously in consequence to the olleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same. Euen otleruti.se, the conduce of public meeting at three road junctions or obstntction to the traffic could not haue been considered as causing ang danger or injury to anA person. In so far as the obstruction in ang public utag is concerned, uthich can also be couered bg Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sLeet cites only one u.titness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the roo.d slaut. Bu| utlen the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place hos been pemitted and if the gatheing for that public meeting resulted in ang inconuenience bg uag of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot'be ansidered to be uith necessary guiltg men s rea to con.strue the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal 15 t) rde Under the circumstances, none cf th(l <,lfences alteged can be said. to h.aue arL! | r qasonable basis and in ang uieut, ccmplaint/ charge sheet being in uiolatkrn o-f. Se ction 195 (j) (a) of Cod.e of Crintin al ,trtcedure, hos to fait. 7 As the complaint has faited. dtt e to its tLnsustainability, the proceedings tn their e,ruirelg haue to fail, though the lst ,tcct secj :.lcne approached. this Court bg u,tag, oJ. thi.s l:rinfinl petition. " 18 In .,'Thotq Chandra Sekholr as. The stqte of Andhra Pradesh, through s..Er.o,, p.s. Erunt Rurar, we:st God.aaari Districtutz, .r'h,: rein by re\.ing on various judgment irLcluding N.T. Rama Rao lSrpu.ir 11) and also the guidelines laid dru,n by the Apex Court in Bhr{:ur La1 (Supra 9) more particularll,, gur deline No.6. which says tf al \,,.here there is an express legal bar irngl-aJted in aly of the provi.si,lrs, of the Code or the concerned .Act (un,1er which a criminal p-oc:e,rlings is instituted) to the insti t.ution and continuance r;f r.lre proceedings andf or where ther.e ir; a specific proyision in t re rlode or the concerned Act, provicling efficacious remedy to rr,dress the grievance of the party, it was he,ld that the proceedings ir. tte said C.C were quashed by exercr t;ing power under Section ,l t] 2 of Cr.p.C. It was also furtlt er hell that the 12 Criminal Perition I o 5 2,13 of20l6, decided on 26.10.2016 16 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 ald 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 deline 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 . -*-;ti--ti -]lr:rtw.:B 1l advertise t:i6la':-r: Ltes or tobacco products, a1d no per son, shall be pa-rt of an1 a i,r,: rtisement.

20. SectirrL :ll of COTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specif ie 1 r l,arning and nicotine and tar contr:nts . But, in the complaints /,'lri rge sheets, there is no allc.gat on against the petitioners -tr a t they were carrying on trade ()r r )ommerce in contrabax([ (r.- arr-y other tobacco products wi.-hor rt label and specified v'arni irg on the said products. In vir:u. ,rf tjte same, the contents of the complaints/charge sheets lacl< the ingredients of Section 20 (11) cI the COTP Act. Even there is no allegzr.tion that the seized procluc:s 1o not contain labels with statlrtor'/ rvi,rning. Thus, registering tlLr: ,:rimes for the said offence agairrst ._he petitioners is , I not only coni rEU-\r to Section 20 (2) of COTP Act, but a1s,o contrar5r to the Shyamsut,rler. In view of the same, the offence rrnd,:r Section 20 Principle laii : o,,r,n in Chidurala (2) of COTP Ac:t is alsr: liable to be quashed against the petitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree with the prurr:i1tle laid down by the learned Single J,rdges of the High Courr. of hndhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyanrsubder, Sri Jaganath En.terrprises and V. Nageswara Rao.

21. In view oi the above said discussion, according trr this Court, transportatio n, prossession, storage, sale and purchase of tobacco products ale rr tt totally banned in the State of Telimgana and also 18 in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sections 274,275 of the BNS and Section 20 (21 of COTP Act are attracted to the present case.

22. In the result, criminal petition is allowed and proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.480 of 2025 on the file of P.S., Medipa-lly, Rachakonda are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ i To, Sd/. A. PRATHIMA EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1 SECTION OFFICER Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar '1 . The Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - lV Addl tVletro Z. te Siitlon House Officer, Medipally P.S , Rachakonda i. On" CC to SRl. SRINIVAS REDDY BALAKISTI Advocate tOP99]. .-. ;. i;; cc=io Fuerrc PRosECUToR, High court at Hvderabad (oUT) 5. Two CD CoPies ta n Magistrate, Medchal VSM/gtt s HIGH COURT DATED:301A4.i2025 A 'i.* o (J o ORDER CRLP.No.580$ of 2025 ..il : o 2 E ;ttti 2925 ',; f 3t - t''e .. li:( ALLOWING T1{E CRIMINAL PETITION w' et g YO G 'tl

and nicotine and tar contents.- (2) Any person toho sells or distibutes cigarettes or tobarco products tuhich do not contoin wither on tlrc package or on their label, tlrc specified utarning and the nicotine and tar contents slnlt tn co.se of first conuiction be punislwbte tdth impri"sonment for a term, uthich mag extend to one Aear, or with fine which mag extend to one ttausand rupees, or uith botly and, for the second or subsequent conuiction, uith impr:santznt for a tertn uhich mag ertend tct tu,o Aear; (Lttc toith fine uhich may ertend to tLr(.e thou:;and t upees." 6 A The lis .nvl,lled in the present petition is no mc,re I es integra. learned SirLgl r: Judge of the High Court of JtLd icature at Hyderabad for :l r, State of Telangana and the Stirte of Andhra Pradesh in Clidltrala Shgamsubd.er as. State of Telanqanat nad an occasion tt d<::r with the issues involved in th. prese t criminal petition. After rele rring to various provisions of ipC, ,lO,l,p Act and a-lso the prir.rciple laid down by the Apex Court arrd crther High Courts in sever al j'rdgments, the learned Single Judple had framed the issues, lvhLi<:h;r-e as under: " 1) Wh --t h : r the respondent/ Sub-Inspector of Police , i:, lompetent to investigate into the offenc e pnreishable under Sections 5-4 and 59(1) ol I)-a Si Act? 2) Whelirrr the petitioners in all the petitions are frrr:ncl :ommitting any act with malicious intenlion, ,r ith knowledge and reason to belie ve that s;uc: zLct likely to spread the infection of any d s,:rrs: dangerous to life? And whether the petitic'n:;'; selling or offering or exposing lbr sale e.s :ir,r I or drink, any article which has been :enctr:r'ed or has become noxious is in a state rrrLfl - ftr food or drink or reason to beiieve that tlte sillre is noxious as food or drink? If so, t Crt.P.No.373l of 201,1 C,: irru:lr decided on 27.0g.2018 re*ft{rr$ffiMrufiffiE I i I I ,] 6 '4, are they liable to be proceeded for the offence punishable under Sections 270 and 273IPC'?' In the very same judgment, the learned Single Judge further Z. held that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the 'lood' within the definition of Section 3 (1') 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 ald so also the provisions of IPC' The respondents-Police are incompetent to investigate the offence 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 of the offence punishable under Section - 273 of IPC since transportation of noxious food is not included under Sectio n 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 Sectio n 27O 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 registrationofcrimeonthegroundofviolationofSections-7(||(2) 1 (3) (5) arrd St:c[iclI,t 26 of CoTP Act is an illegality. The. learned Single Judge further ]rel1 that registration of cases for ther oflence under Section 20 (2) r':-ad, with 7 (2) of COTP Act is illr:gal Wlth the said findings, the k:arned Single Judge has quashtd the '':rimes and calendar cases; i.:t :he said judgment.

8. In "Sn .Iaoanath Enterltrises Eluru Vasqndhi ''l'ripati Rao as. The State oJ' Andhra Pradesi-"2, a learned lSinSJe 'rudge of the High Court c,f At-rChra Pradesh at Amaravati had also atl occasion to deal with the ,sejd issue. After referring to the cotltertion of the respective p:rr[iers; therein, various provisions of IPC FSS:; Act, COTP Act and re1yirL6, ,rn the principle laid down in "Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia3, "il'cseph Kurian us. State of Kerala,"'4 " Sagged Hassan Sagge,C Subhanss, uM/s. Pepsico India Ho'ldings (htt) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P."6 usdniag Aniag Stores us Union of IndiaT , nBoe9t Singh Tyagi as. State"s "State of H'aryana os. Bhajan Lal'ry and Chidurala Shgamsubder (Supta 7)", the learned Singkr ,Jr-.dge has quashed the FlRs/Ca1en'1ar Cases. The learned Sin5de .I;dge referring to the law laid dorvrr in Chidurala t zozo 1t; aLT 1c..) llli t.PI{c) 3 2019 SCC Online B( n I l:;7 n tsss 1ty sct ztt ' 20l8 AIR (sc) 534E 6 20 I I (2) crimes 2 50 7 2017 SCC Onlire ca I i i i: 3 E 2ooz crt.LJ.z8l2 'q 1992 Supp (l) sc: :,3i 8 Shgamsulder (Supra 1) held that despite the said authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues' The said judgment attained linality. Even then, the police are registering cases against accused on the very same aliegations for the very same offences. g. It is further held that the provisions of the COTP Act can only be pressed into service in the limited circumstances only where there is violation of Sections-4.5.6.7 and 1O of the COTP Act. By referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal and M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Prrtf Ltd., the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings in various crimes/ calendar CASES

10. Another learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in "V.Nageswara Rao us. State of Andhra Pradesh"lo had also an occasion to deal with the said issue and agreed with the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubder (Supra 1).

11. In Sayyed Hassan Sayyed 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 hled challenging the registration of FIRs for the offences under Sections 188, 272,273 and 328 of IPC and Sections 26 and 'o 2020 Supreme (AP) 34&* .- ,I 9 30 of FSS A(rt rvl()re there is an allegation of trarsportation and sale of Gutka/Pzrrl \4asaLa etc., held that the judgme nt of Bcmbay High court is corLtt.zr:r to the provisions of the Act ar: d leLw lrrid down by it. With the srrl :inding, the Apex Court remitted the ntatter to the Bombay Hiqh ():urt for fresh consideration on the issue that whether the ef:ri said offences are made out in --he FIR's, which are subject matler rr'the cases pending before the Bombay IIigh Court' 12. In vieu' o1 the authoritative pronouncement of larv in the a-foresaid juClyn,:rts, as discussed above, coming to tl-rr facts of the cases on h trLrl, the allegations against the ac':ustrd i tr respective cases are tr arrst,rtrtation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned produ,:-r; viz., respectively. In Chidurala S hyamsubder (Supra 1), the lezrrned Single Judge observed that tran,;portation of chewing tolte,cr:o or khaini or pan masala do nct c;nstitute an offence pl.nirihzLble under Section 27O c'f LPC and that manufacturir g ol pal masa-la is not included in Se':tio:t' 273 of IPC and, theref<rr: tlte same is not an offence since it s nlt a noxious food. The 1,::.rn : C Single Judge has further observed in the said judgment rvhrch js as under: " I'l,.et act done bg the petitioners i. e . , tratsportation of khaini ond chewing tctbo cco though dangerous of human itfe, tt uttuld not spread or infect or casuc' anA i-rE&i8x8;;i::ati.i:tj:i.i:!a:,r..;.i.,1; I &a*ffiiEBiW-,-: l0 disease on account of transportation and if those products are consumed bg LLuman being, it rt-tould certainlg cause damage to tLe health Therefore, transportotion of khaini or cheuing tobacco is not bg itself is not an offence under Section - 270 of IPC and it uoutd fall uithin Section 270 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 defrnition of 'adulteration' in IPC. The definition 'adulterant' is found in the provisions of the FSS Act. Section - 3 (1) (a) of the FSS Act deais with 'aduiterant' which means a material which could make the 'food' unsafe or sub-standard or mis- brarrded. 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, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco/tambaku/ gutka / klrratni / zatda / par. manala 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 JudgesoftheHighCourtofAndhraPradeshinChidural(r l1 /a Shgamsubden (Slrpra 1), Sri Jaganath Enterprises (Supra 2) and V. Nagesutara Jlirro (Supra 10).

14. In Joseph Kurian (Supra 4), the Hon'ble Supremr Court held that for Secti r': .27 2-IPC to be attracted, the follorvinl:; should be --l z, the article involved was food an cl dr nl< meant to be present. (l ) consumed by 1.2: persons; (2) that the accused adtrltelated it and the adultera.-ion r:ndered it noxious as a food or drirrk'; (3) that the accused knr u a - the time of adulteration that he u,o'-rld sell the article as food cr rlrink arrd knew that such articl,-- cannc,[ be sold as food or drin k 'lt e Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly h e ld that the offence is corrLp [e[ed on the introduction of l.he adulterant 'Aduiterant' ,r'orrl,1 meal that a material which is mi_xecl r o make the 'food' unsaJe or Jrink unsafe. In the present case o1t hand, tobacco is not a fooc l- Jrink and what is stated to be m}:ed in it is not clearly estabris Lr,: j by any cogent material as an adlLlterant' for the offence unde- il,-'ction272 of IPC to be pressed into se rvice.

15. Section 2i.3 ol IPC deals with sale of a noxous foc,d or drink, and as per rl-lricrlr , rvhoever sells, or offers or exposes . br sale, as food or drinl.. any article which has been render.ed cr l..as become noxious, or is in z. state unfit for drink, knowing or havrnq reason to believe that tirr: srilrre is noxious as food or drink, shall b,: punished with imprisorrnr(-'r.r specihed therein. Therefore, if a pr:rson offers for 12 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 a-lso 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 mearing, the word 'noxious' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As stated above, the allegation in the criminal petition is with regard to transportation, possession, storege, sale and purchase of banned products tobacco/tambaku/gutka/kharni/ zarda/ pan masa-la viz etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section - 273 of IPC.

16. As far as Section-188 of IPC is concerned, 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 law{ul authority to promulgate the order, the person Routing the same should have knowledge about the order directing him to abstain from the act; he mint 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, Division bench of Allahabad High Court held that right to .:' 13 promulgate ttLe crdinance/order is also al issue whir:h is being raised, beceus,: -rnder the FSS Act, the Commissiorrer of Food Safety alone i- ar; ..he authority to pass the orders only il the article of 'food' carr cztlls( s danger or is injurious to healt-h

17. In "N."f. Ila.ma Rao tts. The State of A'P', re1;t bg Public Prosecutor"r; ,;rri1e dealing with the offences under Se::tions - 188 arld 283 of IPr,:. the learned Single Judge of the con bined High Court of Anrlhr=. F'radesh heid as under: ' 5) Euen if the ollegation that the peti'tioner .c t1'Tucted- public meetings at three road .1ur,-ctions contrary to the perrnission ac<'.orded .ior :on.ducting of a public meeting onlg at <nte :;1t'.-:,.fied place is tnte, such a direction under ,i<,.:ttor-t 3O of the Police Act, 7867 coulcl haue- sezn giuen onlg bg the Supeintendent or t,te -l,;sl.;fanl Supeintendent of Police of t'rc .)i.:; tict but not bg ang of their subordtnole's. .'f .; tchic permrbsion is granted under Section 3t, c'f the Police Ac| 1861 and is uiolated, )':ct on 195 (1) (a) of Code of Crimir al Dr,t:,zdure mandotes that the complctint in 'L t: regord has to be made bg the public ;<,.r .) 1nt concerned or some other to u.thtnn ;ucl . a public seruant i^s administratit'elA ;t ft r,rdinate to enable ang Court to take t>Tnizance of an offence under Section ,188 rr Criminal Petitur N o : -12 3 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 14 of Lake Criminal Procedure. In the present case, th.e charge sheet uas filed bg tLLe Sub Inspector of Police, who could not haue been the authoitg to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/ clnrge strcet is in uiolation of the mandatory proui.sion of Section 195 (1) 9o) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. That apart, the offence alleged to haue been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by tLrc petitioners and others is obuiously in consequence to the olleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same. Euen otleruti.se, the conduce of public meeting at three road junctions or obstntction to the traffic could not haue been considered as causing ang danger or injury to anA person. In so far as the obstruction in ang public utag is concerned, uthich can also be couered bg Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sLeet cites only one u.titness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the roo.d slaut. Bu| utlen the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place hos been pemitted and if the gatheing for that public meeting resulted in ang inconuenience bg uag of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot'be ansidered to be uith necessary guiltg men s rea to con.strue the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal 15 t) rde Under the circumstances, none cf th(l <,lfences alteged can be said. to h.aue arL! | r qasonable basis and in ang uieut, ccmplaint/ charge sheet being in uiolatkrn o-f. Se ction 195 (j) (a) of Cod.e of Crintin al ,trtcedure, hos to fait. 7 As the complaint has faited. dtt e to its tLnsustainability, the proceedings tn their e,ruirelg haue to fail, though the lst ,tcct secj :.lcne approached. this Court bg u,tag, oJ. thi.s l:rinfinl petition. " 18 In .,'Thotq Chandra Sekholr as. The stqte of Andhra Pradesh, through s..Er.o,, p.s. Erunt Rurar, we:st God.aaari Districtutz, .r'h,: rein by re\.ing on various judgment irLcluding N.T. Rama Rao lSrpu.ir 11) and also the guidelines laid dru,n by the Apex Court in Bhr{:ur La1 (Supra 9) more particularll,, gur deline No.6. which says tf al \,,.here there is an express legal bar irngl-aJted in aly of the provi.si,lrs, of the Code or the concerned .Act (un,1er which a criminal p-oc:e,rlings is instituted) to the insti t.ution and continuance r;f r.lre proceedings andf or where ther.e ir; a specific proyision in t re rlode or the concerned Act, provicling efficacious remedy to rr,dress the grievance of the party, it was he,ld that the proceedings ir. tte said C.C were quashed by exercr t;ing power under Section ,l t] 2 of Cr.p.C. It was also furtlt er hell that the 12 Criminal Perition I o 5 2,13 of20l6, decided on 26.10.2016 16 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 ald 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 deline 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 . -*-;ti--ti -]lr:rtw.:B 1l advertise t:i6la':-r: Ltes or tobacco products, a1d no per son, shall be pa-rt of an1 a i,r,: rtisement.

20. SectirrL :ll of COTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specif ie 1 r l,arning and nicotine and tar contr:nts . But, in the complaints /,'lri rge sheets, there is no allc.gat on against the petitioners -tr a t they were carrying on trade ()r r )ommerce in contrabax([ (r.- arr-y other tobacco products wi.-hor rt label and specified v'arni irg on the said products. In vir:u. ,rf tjte same, the contents of the complaints/charge sheets lacl< the ingredients of Section 20 (11) cI the COTP Act. Even there is no allegzr.tion that the seized procluc:s 1o not contain labels with statlrtor'/ rvi,rning. Thus, registering tlLr: ,:rimes for the said offence agairrst ._he petitioners is , I not only coni rEU-\r to Section 20 (2) of COTP Act, but a1s,o contrar5r to the Shyamsut,rler. In view of the same, the offence rrnd,:r Section 20 Principle laii : o,,r,n in Chidurala (2) of COTP Ac:t is alsr: liable to be quashed against the petitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree with the prurr:i1tle laid down by the learned Single J,rdges of the High Courr. of hndhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyanrsubder, Sri Jaganath En.terrprises and V. Nageswara Rao.

21. In view oi the above said discussion, according trr this Court, transportatio n, prossession, storage, sale and purchase of tobacco products ale rr tt totally banned in the State of Telimgana and also 18 in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sections 274,275 of the BNS and Section 20 (21 of COTP Act are attracted to the present case.

22. In the result, criminal petition is allowed and proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.480 of 2025 on the file of P.S., Medipa-lly, Rachakonda are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ i To, Sd/. A. PRATHIMA EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1 SECTION OFFICER Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar '1 . The Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - lV Addl tVletro Z. te Siitlon House Officer, Medipally P.S , Rachakonda i. On" CC to SRl. SRINIVAS REDDY BALAKISTI Advocate tOP99]. .-. ;. i;; cc=io Fuerrc PRosECUToR, High court at Hvderabad (oUT) 5. Two CD CoPies ta n Magistrate, Medchal VSM/gtt s HIGH COURT DATED:301A4.i2025 A 'i.* o (J o ORDER CRLP.No.580$ of 2025 ..il : o 2 E ;ttti 2925 ',; f 3t - t''e .. li:( ALLOWING T1{E CRIMINAL PETITION w' et g YO G 'tl