The High Court · 2025

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

2. Sri G, Shekar, Sub lnspector of Police, Masab Tank Police Station, Hyderabad ...RespondenUComplainanTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.'l in C.C. No. 10612 of 2024 and the case is pending trial before the Vl Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioner /Accused in C.C. No. 10612 of 2024 and the case is pending trial before the Vi Additional Chief Judicial [Vlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mohammed Fayaz, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER I I I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA I:RIMINAL PDTITION NO. 15856 oF 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is frled under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No. 1 in C.C.No. 10612 of 2024 on the hle of Vl-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 7 of the Prohibition of E-Cigarettcs Act (for short'PEC ActJ-

2. The lacts of the case are that respondent No.2-S.1. of Police, Masab Tank Police Station, Hyderabad lodged a report stating that on 17.01.2024 at about 2300 hours, hr: received a credible information that one person aged about 20 to 23 years is seiling and supplying banned electronic Cigarettes to the needy customers at Amrutha Valley Apartment, Flat No. 1O3, Silver Oak Block, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. On such information, he along with his staff immediately rushed to the spot, conducted inspection of the said place in the presence of panchas wherein, on search they found different flavors of E-Cigarettes in the room of petitioner. On enquiry, he voluntarily admitted his guilt and confessed that he is selling I I I I I I I 2 I I and supplying banned E-Cigarettes to the customers. Thereafter the police seized tlie baloed E-Cigarettes under cover of panchanama and lodged report before the police. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case against the accused for the said offence.

3. Heard Sri Mohammed Fayaz, learned counsel for the petitioner ald learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the said offence. Section 7 of the pEC Act will not attract to the petitioner as E-Cigarettes do not come within the purview of PEC Act. The petitioner is a student and pursuing his studies. He further contended that the petitioner has only booked Rapido on behalf of his friend, but he does not know about the parcel. If criminal proceedings are continued against the petitioner, his future will be damaged. petitioner has nothing to do with the said crime. Though police fiied charge sheet, all the witnesses are official witnesses and Lw.4- is the neighbor of petitioner who gave statement against the petitioner is due to grudge and all other witnesses are 3 interesting witnesses. As such, requested thiS Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A.1.

5. On tl-re other hand, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner stating that petitioner herein was found in possession of banned E-Cigarettes which is a serious offence, the police conducted panchanama in the presence of independent panchas, ald that the evidence of independent witnesses is against the petitioner which requires adjudiciation. Therefore, it is not the stage to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and material on record, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the said offence; that he does not knou,anything about the said E-Cigarettes and he booked Rapido for his friend which itself shows that he is admitting seizure of E-cigarettes. Further, the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer shows that since twp years Lw.4 is consuming tr-cigarettes and he used to purchase 5 or 6 vapes of E-cigarettes from the petitioner as he is well knoq,n to him. Further, petitioner used to bring E-Cigarettes from Karnataka \ \ \ i t i i , 4 a State.Lw.5whoisworkingascourieratPorterAppstatedthat oL 16.01.2024 at about 1'O0 p'm', there was one parcel to be deliveredatHuddHeightsMLAColony,RoadNo'12'Banjara Hills, and he delivered the said parcel at about 1'3O p'm'' to the petitioner, but he do not know the item in the parcel' 7 . The statement of the above witnesses shows that petitioner herein used'to sel1 banned E-Cigarettes to Lw'4 and the evidence of Lw.5 shows that he delivered parcel to the petitioner. These allegations require adjudication after full- fledged trial and. at this stage, petitioner is not entitled for quashing the prlceedings' Hence, the criminal petition is liabie to be dismissed. 8 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed' Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any' shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR DE I I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 ry- 4 5 DL/gh The Vl Additiona{ Chief tvletropolitan lVlaglstrate at Nampally, Hyderabad' The Station House Officer, Ir/lasab Tank Police Station' Hyderabad. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings' at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to Sri lVlohammed Fayaz, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies : I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 ORDER CRLP.No.15856 of 2.O24 IFF o Q ( 1nf S ra l€ 01 fiAi Z0Z5 , , , DISMISSING THE CTRIMINAL PETITION i .;