In Chidursls Shyamsuhtler v. Stute of Tehngonat, a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by following the

Petition under section 528 of B. N.s.s., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminai petition, the High court may be ple-ased to Quash the proceedings vide p.R.c.No 4s0 of 2021 F.R.c.No 450 of 2021 on the file of the court of Hon'ble Vl Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in FIR No. 169 of 2018, Dt. 03-07_2018, negltereO U/Sec. 328, 1BB lPC, 4, 20(2) COTPA on the fite of SHO ot pS Humayu"nnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana as ilegar, u nconstitutionar, contrary to raw, with-out jurisdiction and as such liable to be quashed in the interest of justice by directing the police to release entire property, forthwith. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminil petition, the High court may be. pleased to Stay all further proceedings including "pp"r[n"" oi thu petitioners in P.R.c.No 450 of 2021, on the file of the court of Hon,ble Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in purs,_ibnce of the Ciime 7 vide FIR No. .169 ot2018, Dated 03.07.2018, Registered U/sec. 328, 188 lPC,4, 20 (2) COTPA on the file of SHO of PS Humayunnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana' forthwith pending disposal of the Quash Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurnents of sri s lvl sUBHAN, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana on behalf of the sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER I I I THE HONOURABLE SMT. ruSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CR]MIN AL PETITI ON No.l6295 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short .BNSS,) petitioners-accused Nos.l to 3 to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.450 of 2021, pending on the file of VI Addirional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections lgg,32g ofIpC, Sections 4 and 20(2) of the cigarettes and other Tobacco products (prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, production, Supply and Distriburion) Act, 2003 (for short .COTp Act,.

02. I{eard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Iearned Additional public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.

03. In Chidursls Shyamsuhtler v. Stute of Tehngonat, a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by following the guidelines laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. 1CRL.P.No.373I of2O18 and barch datcd 27.OB.2OtB 2 Bhajan LaP, held that the police are incompetent to take cognizance ofthe offences punishable under Sections 45 and 59(l) ofthe Food Safety and Star.rdards (FSS) Act, 2006, investigating into the .offences along with other offences under the provisions of the Indian Per-ral Code, 1860, and filing charge sheet is grave illegality, as the Food officer alone is competent to ir.rvestigate and to file charge slreet following the Rules laid down under Section s 4l and, 42 of FSS Act, whereas, in the present case, the police have registered the crin.re for the offences under Sections 188 and 32g of IpC.

04. In so far as Section 20(2) of the COTp Act is concerned, the allegations against the petitioners are that they are selli.g the tobacco products to the customers illegally in order to gain wrongful profits. In view of the said allegations, it iS apt to refer to Section - 20 (2) of the COTp Act, for better appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question and the same is as under: "20(2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contqin either on ihe package or on their label, the specified warning and the nicitine and tar contents shall in the case offirst conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend ti on" y"or, *.yi.rh fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or u,ith both, and, for the second or subsequent conviction, with 2 1992 Supp {l) scy'33s 3 imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and withfine which may extend to three thousand rupees. "

05. Thus, Section 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. As stated above, the allegation against the petitioners herein is that they have purchased the tobacco products and selling them to customers at higher prices to gain wrongful profits. The petitioners are neither traders, nor supplier/distributor of cigareftes or any other tobacco products. There is no allegation in the charge sheet against the petitioners that they are carrying on the trade or commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products. In view of the same, the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of Section 20(2) of the COTP Act. In the entire charge sheet, there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain the labels as well as statutory warning. Furthermore, there are no allegations against the petitioners that they were found smoking in any public place. Therefore, registering the crime for the said offences against the petitioners is also contrary to Sections 4 and 20 (2) of COTP Act. Thus, said offences are also liable to be quashed against the'petitioners. Therefore, the said I / 4 proceedings in P.R.C.No.450 of 2021, pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

06. In vier.v of the above discussion, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.450 of 2021 ,pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioners-accused Nos. I to 3, are hereby quashed. The petitioners-accused are at liberly to file appropriate application before the trial Court for return of seized property. On such application bcing filed, the trial Court is directed to release the seized property to the petitioners on proper acknowledgment. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. \ To //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISiRA/ SECTION OFFICER

1. The Vl Additional Chief Mehopolitan, Magistrate. Hvderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Humayun ruagar polile'Siation, Hyderabad, T. S. 3. Two CCs to the pubtic Prosecutoi, nign eourr toi tnJstate odieiJngina at 4. One CC to SRt S M SUBHAN. Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) % HIGH COURT DATED: 0910112025 ORDER CRLP.No.16295 of 2024 1irl..: Si4 r{: (Jt1 o 13 ri, 2fl20 I C \ P,\1CH EO ALLOWED \ V