Subhan Ms. N. Arthi Mr. Y. Bala Murali Mr. Boggula Raju Mr. S. Chandrasekhar v. Yadukrisbaa Sainath Respective leamed counsel Leamed Public Prosecutor For Respon

Order

I I HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CzuMINAL PETITION No. 16066 of 2024 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ,BNSS,), seeking ro quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. land 2 in Crime No.660 of 2024 of PS Jangaon, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 275 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023.

2. Heard Mr. Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional pubtic I t Prosecutor appearing lor the State and perused the record.

3. Leamed counsel for petitioners submitted that the matter is squarely covered by rhe order, dated 05.07.2021 in Crl.p.No.l52 of 2020 and batch.

4. Learned Additional Public prosecutor also submitted that the issue in the present crinrinal petition is covered by the earlier.order in the above Criminal Petition. I 2 is,l Cr1.p.No.16066, of 2024

5. In view of the said representation and as the matter is squarely covered by the order in the above Ctiminal Petition, this Criminal Petition is allorved in terms of the above said order, adopting the reasoning contained therein. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. l and 2 in Crime No'660 of 2024 of PS Jangaon, Warangal District, are hereby quashed. Further, the Investigating Officer is hereby directed to retum the seized property on proper identification and verification under due acknowledge ment. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD EG TRAR ASSISTANT SE ION OFFICER To,

1. The Station House Officer, Jangaon pS, Warangal District 2. Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri Bala Murati y, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies f 4tot g with the copy of the order dated 05-07 -2021 in crr.p.No. 1 52 of 2o20 % & batch I VA/gh I /..1,v \ HIGH COURT DATED:0610112025 ORDER CRLP.No.16066 of 2024 ( o o $E sTA re 1 0 7 JAN 2025 * D€sr. i. ({ z () ALLOWING THE CRLP @*oW o IN TtrE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: IIYDERABAD

CORAM: * THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSIIMAN + CRIMINAL PETITION No.l52 OF 2020 & Batch 7o Delivcred on: 05-07-2021 Bctween in Crl.P. No.I52 of 2020 # Mr. Mohd. Jameel Ahmed .. Petitioner $ The State ofTelangana, rep.by Public Prosecutor I{igh Court ofTelangana, Ilyderabad & another Respondents ! For respective Petitioners : Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed Mr. Gajanand Chakavarthy Mr. K. Surender Mr. Praveeo Kumar Veerjala, Ms. P. Radhika Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti 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. Yadukrisbaa Sainath Respective leamed counsel Leamed Public Prosecutor ^ For Respondents < Gist > Head Not€ ? Cases Referred r.20rtAtR(sc)5t48 2. 20t6 Cri. L.l. 24Ol 3. 2019 SCC Onl-he Bom 1857 4. Crl.P. No.l73l of2018 & batch decided oo 27.08.201E s. 2020 (l) ALT (Crl.) 2t5 (APHC) 6. r995 ( l) SCJ 277 7. 201I (2) Crimes 250 t. 2017 SCC OalineCal 16323 9. 204C.LJ.2872 10. 1992 Supp (l) sCC 335 l l. 2020 Supreme (AP) 348 12. CriElina! Petition No.5323 of2009, decided on 17.09.2009 ll. Criminal Petition No.l 5248 of 2016, decided on 26.10-2016 I KI-.J Crl P. No.l52 of2020 & batch HON'I]LE SRIJLSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRINIINAL PETITION Nos.152. 153. 155. 162 & 5E26 OF 2020 AND 3498.

3500. I509. 35 t 4. 3768. 3879. 4046. . 4077. 4098. 4099. 4100. 4102. 4110.

4119. 4140. 4141. 4151. 4157. 4178. 4182.4187. 1194.4216. 4230.4247. 4249.

4251. 4258. 4262. 4271, 4161, 4405. 4415, 4542, 4612. 4615, 4622. 4632, 1640, 1681,4't27,47'15 & 4825 0F 2021 COMMON ORDER: All the above Criminal Petitions are filed to quash the procedings against the petitioners - accused in respective Crimes / Calendar Cases. The details of relevant Crimes / Calendar Cases, offences alleged, nature of offences etc., are mentioned in the following tabular form: f_.--r-- SI, No Cd.P No. Cn rne No Nurnber I 0l 02 03 04 05 06 0'7 08 09 l0 u l2

13. 313',79/2t 1168t21 21720 of PS Manoharabad 33/21 of PS Kadam 78/21 of PS (T) Adilabad 4077/2t 2l/21 of PS 4M6/2t Easgoan 4098t2t 1099t2t 18521 of PS (T) Nirlml No.l612l of PS Koutala 410021 No.382l of PS Easgoan 4t02nl 45521 of PS Kukatpally 4t4t/21 45nl of PS Chidgpally 4t5t/21 4t51t2t 4t8y2t 4tE7/21 l9E/21 of PS Choutuppal 134/21 of PS Cbjtyal (NLG) 74121 ofPS Raehunadlpalcm 202121 of PS (T) Mancherial accused accused At &2 Al to3 aacnsed $le accused Al to3 Al to4 At &2 accus€d Offences allegedly committed 272. 273 IPC & 20 Ql nw 7Q) of COTPA 270 & 2?3 IPC do-

270. 213 tPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA 270 & 273 IPC 270 & 273 IPC

136. 271 & 188 IPC & 59 (i) of FSSA 2?0 & 273 IPC & 20(2) w 7(21 ot COTPA 272 & 2'73 tPC & 20 (2) ofCoTPA 272, 273 & 328 IPC&20(r)&7 (3) ofCOTPA 270&273IPC do- Nalure oloffence Transponaaion of Amber Sale of banned lobacco products Sale of gutka./tobacco illegally in godown Possession ofButka /lobacco in pan shop Transponation of prohibited eurka Possession oftobacco pmducts itr the house Possession of banned gutka & other tobacco items in pan shoD Traosportation and sale ofprohibited tobacc! products Tra$portation of tot acco producb Storage oftobacco products for sale Purchase and salc of prchibitcd tobacco products Transportatioo of banned tobacco/qutka Possession ofbaruled tobacco producs x l4 l5 4211121 4249t21

16. 4251l2t t-l I8 4258/2\ 4262i21 t9. 4277121

21. 4405t2t 44t512t

22. 4542/2t 61121 of PS II Town Adilabad l0l/21 of PS t Town Adilabad 90/21 of PS t Town Adilabad 91121 of PS I Town Adilabad 107/21 of PS I Town Adilabad t6z2l of PS AbdullapurEet 2OU2l of PS I Town Nalgooda 232t21 of PS lL (T) Nalsoada 87,21 of Ps m (T) Kothagudem I 23 14 25 26 46t512t 225121 of PS Niruul Towu 4640/2t E920 of PS Mamada 18621 of PS Peddavoora t64l21of PS Adibarla 27 2n 4825/?t 21421 of PS I (T) Naleonda 245121 of PS Khamnam (R) 3 KL.J Ctt.P. No.l52 of2020 & tutch -do- Al &2 accuSed i\l & 2 Altol accused accused At &2 Al&2 A2 A] Al to4 At&2 'do -do -do 188, 2'72, 271 & 328 tPC t8E, 272 & 213 tPc 'do- lEE,269,210, 2-13 rlw 34 IPC & lofEDA&51 (b)ofDMA 2-70 & 273 tPC. io- r/* 14 IPC 128 w 5ll,272 & 271 tPC 270, 212 & 273 IPC & 20 (2) of COTPA 328,272, 273 & r88 IPC 32t, 270 & 213 r/w 5l I IPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA Possession of baDned gutka products Sale ofgutka and tobacco products About to tratrspott noxious gutka and tobacco producls Sale ofbanned gltka and tobacco products Transportation of grrtka and tobacco prDducts Sale of banDed tobacco (aribaku) pmducts in TransportatioD of gutk tobacco Dmducts Possession ofbarned gutka hobacco producls Possession oftobacco products in kiraDa shop Possession of prohibited tobacco products for sale Tranpo(ation o f banned tobacco/gutka pockets Possession ofbaoled gutka & tobacco products in kirana shop Taansportation of cigarctte or other tobacco p.oducts without valid license Sale of gltka & kllaioi Transportation of banned 29 t52/20

31. t55120

12. 3l 5826t20 34 3498/2t 35 CALENDAR CASES A2 A2 A] A2

210. 271 & t88, 420 tPC & 58 ofFSSA 272 & 2'73 IPC & 59 of FSSA, 2006 420, 210 & 271 tPC & 5E ofFSSA 272, 2?3, 136 & 420 IPC & 20 (2) of COTPA Transponation of bamed zarda products Sale of zarda illegally Trans?onation of ba[ned zarda Sale of prohibited gutka and chewing tobacco products Al &2 t8E, 270 & 273 tPC Traosportation of ArDber gutko pockets At &2 420 & 273 tPc 420 & 27f rPc & 20 (i0 of coT?A:ml saleofbafircd tobacco 6nd gutka prodlrcts Transpo{tation of tobac.o and gutka Products 3515/19 of I.AJMFC, Warangal 2724/19 ol X!'II ACMM, Hvd. 3518/19 of I.AJMFC. Warangal 4137118 ol )(I AMM, Se..bad Special Magistrate of II Class. Jagtial 216120 of JFCM, Dcvarkonda 963/19 of JI.-CM, Miryalguda I KL,J Crl.P No.tt2 of 2020 & batch 188, 270 & 211 rPC. 20 (2)of COTPA, 3 of EDA & 5l (b) of DMA t8t, 270, 273 & 420 IPC & 20 (2) or COTPA 272 & 273 tPc & 20 (2) tlw -l (2) of COTPA 270 & 271 rPC & 20 (2) rlw -1 (2t of COTPA 270,27t,272 & 273 r/* 34 IPC Scc.3 ofEDA Sorage of banned gutka and other tobacco producrs illegally for sale Supply ofgutka and other lobacco products Transportation of Amber tobacco Transportation ofpan tuasala and banned gutka Tranqortalion of co$on seeds and ban-oed gutka Al&2 Al to5 Al to4 I I I I Al &2 I IPC & S€..20 | Transponation ofbanned tobacco I and gurka lro u ,',rl I (t), zo (zl or I lcomn I accused accused l\l &2 2',t0 &213 tPC &20(21 ofCoPTA 188, n2 & 273 rPC & 20 (2)&5of COTPA 270 & 273 rPc & 20 (2\ ofCOTPA I Purchase and sale ofbanned Butka Sale of tobacco products in lus shop and disobeyiog the rules inrposed by Govt. in Not.No,505/FSS-l2ldt,6. l.2l Transpodation of Arnber gutka Al &2 -do- Transponatioo of gutka/pao masala At &2 210 &273 tPC Possession of lobacco produc(s ill€ally for sale Sole At &2 A] -do -do Purchase and sale ofprohibired guka pockes Possessioo of guka p&kets at bus srand for sale illeSally 4o- rlw 34 tPC & 20 (2\ ofCOTPA Tmnsponation of b8lned tobacco products I l6 3509/2 r 452n0 of XXV MMC, Ibrahiropalan Al &2 37 3514/2t 632/19 of )ory MMC. Al !o8 l8 l9 4tt0/2r 4 t 19/21 l-

41. 4t40t?l 42 41 41 I I I 4t78t2t 4t94/21

45. 46 47 4361/2t 46tu2t 48 4622t21 49 4632t2t 541t21 of PJMFC, Oajwel 5@/20 of Spl.PCR Mobile Court-cum- JMFC, Adilabad 512/20 of Spl.PCR Mobile Crurt-cum- JMTC, Adilabad STC No.202l of rV AMM- curn-[V AJCJ, L.B. Nagar t 10/21 of IAJMFC, Khamrnam 6l67m of XVII ACMM, Nampally l298l2l of PJMFC, KhsJnmam 829n1 of PJMFC, Khafimam lotl2l of AJMFC, Asifabad I st3/20 of l*.. I Nirmal 62A19 of AJMFC, Ni(mal 4t3n0 of AJMFC, Nirmd

2. Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthy, Mr. K. Surender, Mr. Praveen Kumar Veeg'ala, Ms. P. Radhika, 5 KLJ Cn P. No.I t2 t2020 & batch ) Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti, Ms. C. Sunitha Kumari, Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Mr. S.M. Subhan, Ms. N. tuthi, Mr. Y. Bala Murali, Mr. Boggula Raju, Mr. S. Chandrasekhar, Mr. V. Yadukrishna Sainath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective petitioners and leamed Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondents - State.

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

4. The main allegations against the petitioners - accused are that they were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka I V.hahi I zarda / 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) afi,7 (3) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Proh.ibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act,2003 (for short 'COTP Act'); Sections - 58 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short 'FSS Act'); Section - 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (for short 'ED Act') and Section - 5l (b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short DS Act) respectively. 6 KL.J Ctt ?- No.l52 d2020 & batch

5. The respective leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the above criminal petitions would submit that the contents of complaint / charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused. For the offences under the provisions of FSS Act, only Food Safety Officer 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 ( I ), 20 (2) and 5 read with 7 (2) anld 7 (3) of the COTP Act. The Investigating Officers / Complainants without following the procedure laid 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.LP No.t52 o12020 & batch {

6. On the other hand, leamed public prosecutor referring to the principle laid down in the State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhant by the Hon,ble Supreme Court and in Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao v. The State of Maharashtra2 and Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia v. 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 viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini I 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 presenr criminal petitions under Section - 4g2 of Cr.p.C. which cannot be considered at this stage. i) With the above said submissions, leamed public proseculor 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) 534E 2016 Cri. L.f.240t 2019 SCC OnLinc Bom 1857 8 KLJ C.l.P- No.l52 of 2020 & barc!, RELEVANT PROVISIONS T]NDER IPC "18t. Disobedience to order duly promulglted by Public servant.-Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with cenain property in his possession or under his matragemeDt, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, atrnoyance or injury, or risk of obstructioo, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simpte imprisonment for a term which may extend to one mouth or with fure which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause darger !o human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affiay, shall be punished with imprisoDmetrt of either descriptioo for a term which may extend to six months, or with hne which may extend to one thousaod ruPees, or with both. Explanation.-lt is not trecessary that the offender should iBtend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. lt is sufficient that he knows ofthe order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. lllustratiotr An order is promulgated by a public s€rva[t lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass dow[ a certain street' A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger ofriot' A has committed the offence dehned in this sectiou." "269. Negligetrt act likely to spread infection of disease daugerous to life.-Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, tikely-to spread the infection of any disease daugerous to life, shatl be punished with imprisoDment of either description for a term which may exteod to six months, or with fiue, or with both." '2?0. Malignant act likely to spread itrfection of diseas€ daugerous to life. Whoever malignandy does any act which /\ 9 KL.J Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 & botch is, and rl4lich he knows or has reason to believe to be, likety to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, sball be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may exteod to two yean, or with fine, or with both." "271. Disobedietrce to quaratrtine rule.-Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Covemment for puttiDg any vessel iDto a state ofquaraltine, or for regulatiug the intercoune of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessels, or for regulating the htercourse between places where atr ilfectious disease prevails and other places, shatl be punished with imprisonment of either description for a tertrl which may extend to six months, or with fiae, or with both." "272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.- Whoever adultentes aoy article of food or driok so as to make such article noxious as food or &ink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same witl be sold as food or drink shall be punished with imprisonment of either descriptiou for a term which may extend to six months, or with fioe which may extend to one thousand rupees, or wirh both." "273. Sale of noxious food or driok.-Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, aoy anicle which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reasoo to believe tbat the sam€ is nox- ious as food or drirk shall be puaished witb imprisonment of either description for a terrn which may extend to six months, or with frne which may extend to on€ thousald rupees, or with both." '328. Causing hurt by m€ans of poison, etc., with itrtent to commit an offeuce.-Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any persoo atry poisoo or any stuperying, inbxicatiog or unwholesome dnrg, or other thing with hteut to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission ofan offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonmeat of t0 KL,J Crl.P. No-t52 {2020 & batch either description for a term which may exteud to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." "336. Act endangering life or persotral safety of others.- Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the persotral safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may cxtend to three months, or with fine which may ext€nd to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both." "420. Cbeating ard diihonestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to atry person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anlthing which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descriptioo for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to hne." "J4. Acts dotre by several persons in furtherance of common intentioB.-Whe[ a criminal act is done by several persons in fudherance of the common intention ofall, each ofsuch persoos is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone " "511. Punishment for attempting to commit olTences pudsheble with imprisoDment for life gr other r attempts to commit an offence imprisonment.-Who€ve punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause suoh an offenca to be coEmitted, aEd in such anempt does aoy act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of suah attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term whicb may exteud to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, ooe-halfofthe loogest term of imprison-, ment provided for that offeuce, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both." KL-J Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch 'r.\ RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER COTP ACT "5. Prohibitiotr of advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products.{l) No person engaged in, or purported to be engaged in the production, supply or distribution ofcigarenes or any other tobacco products shall advertise aod no person haviag control over a medium shall cause to bs advertised cigarettes or any other tobacco products througb that medium and no person shatl take part in any advertisement which directly or indirectly suggests or promotes the use or consuDption ofcigarettes or any other tobacco products. (2) No person, for any direct or indirect pecuoiary benefit, sball- (a) display, cause to display, or perrnit or authorise to display any advertisement ofcigarettes or any other tobacco producq or (b) sell or cause to sell, or pernit or authorise to sell a film or video tape containing advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (c) disuibute, cause !o distribute, or permit or authorise to distribute to the public any leaflet, hand-bill or document which is or which contains an advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (d) erect, exhibit, fix or retain upon or over any land, building, wall, hoarding, frame, post or structure or upon or in any vehicle or shall display in any manner whatsoever in any place any advertiseEent ofcigarettcs or any other tobacco product: Provided that this sub-section shatl not apply in relation to- (a) an advertisement of cigarenes or ally other tobacco product in or on a package containing cigarettes or any other tobacco product; (b) advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobaccci product which is displayed at the entranc€ or inside a warehouse or a shop where cigarettes and any other tobacco products are offered for distributioo or sale. (3) No person, shall, under a cootract or otherwise promote or agr€e to promote the use or consumption of- (a) cigareues or any other tobacco product; or (b) any trade mark or brand name of cigarettes or any oth€r tobacco product in exchange for a sponsorship, gift, prize or scholarship given or agreed to be given by another person." "20. PunishmeDt for failure to give specilied warning and uicotitre atrd tar cotrtents.- (1) Any person who produces or manufactures cigarettes or tobacco products, which do not contain, either on the package or ( l2 KL-J Crl-P No 152 of 2020 & batch on their label, the specified waming and the nicotine aud tar conteots, shall in the case ol frrst cooviction be punishable with imprisonment for a terrn which may ext€nd to two years, or with fine which may exteod to five thousaud rupees, or with both, and for the second or subsequent co[viction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extedd to ten thousand rupees- (2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the specified waming and the nicotine and tar coqtents shatl in the case of first conviction be puoishable with imprisonment lbr a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rup€ or with both, and, for thc second or subsequetrt conviction, with imprisonmen( for a term which may exteod to two years and €s, with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees." "7. Restrictious oo trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco products.- (l) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, supply or disribute 6 cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or disributed by him bears thereon, or on its label such specified waming including a pictorial waming as may be prescribed. (2) No person shall carry on bade or commerce ilr cigarEnes or any other tobacco products unless every package ofcigarettes or any other tobacco producls sold, supplied or distributed by him bean thereon, or on its label, the specified waming. (3) No person shall import cigarettes or any other tobacco products for disrribution or supply for a valuable consideratiou or for sale in India unless every package of cigarcttes or any other tobacco products so imported by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified waming. (4) The specified waming shall appea! on oot less thao one of the largest panels ofthe package in which cigarettes or aoy other KL.J Crl.P. No.lt2 of 2020 & htch /\ tobacco products have been packed for distribution, sale or supply for a valuable consideration. I (5) No person shatt, directly or iudirectly, produce, supply or distribute cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him indicates thereon, or on its label, the nicotine aod tar cooteots on each cigarette or as the case ,nay be on other tobacco products along with the maximum permissible limits thereof: Provided that the nicotine and tar cofltents shall not exce€d the maximum permissible quantity thereofas may be prescribed by rules made under this Act." RELEVANT PROyISIONS UNDER F.S.S. ACt: '5E. Peoalfy for conkaventions for which no specific penalty is provided.-Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, for the coutravention of which no penalty has bee[ separately provided in this Chapter, shatl be liable to a penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees." "59. Puoishment for unsafe food.-Any persoo wbo, whether by himself or by any other penon on his behatfl manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or iEports atry article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,- (i) where such failure or contraveotion does not result in itrjury, with imprisooment for a term which may exteod to six moDths and also with fiae which may extend to one lakh rupees; (ii) where such failure or contraveotion results in a non-grievous injury, with imprisooment for a teru which oray extead to one year and also with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees; (iii) where such failure or contraveotion results in a grievous injury, with imprisooment for a term which may extend to six years and also with fine which may exteod to five lakh nrpees; (iv) where such failure or contrav€ntion results fur death, with , imprisonment for a term which shall trot be less thao seven years but which may exteod to imprisoomeut for life and also with fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees." I ( l4 KL.J Ctl P. No 152 of2020 & lytch RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER E.D. ACT: "3. Penalty. Any persoo disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of the lndian Penat Code (45 of 1860 )." RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER D.M. ACT: "51. Puuishment for obstruction, etc. (l) Whoever, without reasonable cause (l) Whoever, without reasonable cause " (a) obstrucs any offrcer or employee of the Central GoverDment or the Stat€ Govemment, or a pe6on authorised by the National Authority or Stare Authoriry 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 Central Govemment or the Statc Govemmeot or th€ National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a tenu which may extetrd to one year or with hne, or with both, and if such obstruction or rofusal to comply with directions results ill loss of lives or immioent danger thereof, shall on convictios be punishabte with imprisonment for a term which may extend !o two years. notes on clauses Clauses 5l to 58 (Secs. 5I to 58) seeks to lay down what will coostitute an offence in terms of obstruction of the functions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuaace of false waming, failure of an officer to perform the duty impos€d on him under the Act without due permission or lawful excuse, or his connivance al contravention of the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide for penalties for these offences."

8. The /ls involved in the present petitions is no more res integra. A leamed Single Judge of the High Court of Judicatue at Hyderabad for the State ofTelangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telanganal had an occasion to deal with the issues involved in the present criminal petitions. After referring to various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts '. Crl.P. No.3ll I of20l E & barch, decided on 27.06.20tt l5 KL.J Crl.P. No.l52 oI2O2O & botch in several judgments, the leamed Single Judge had framed the issues, which are as under: "l) Whether the respondent/ Sub-Inspector of Police, is compet€nt investigate into the offence punishable under Sectiotrs 54 and 59(l) of FSS Act? 2) Whether the petitioneE in all the petitions are found committing any act with malicious intentioq 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 drin-k, aoy article which has been rendered or has become noxious or is i! a staie unfit for food or drink or reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink? If so, are they liable to be proceeded for the oflence punishable under Sections 270 ar:d 2'13 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 file charge sheet against the accused therein for the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) of FSS Act, as they were not empowered under the said Act to launch the prosecution, but only Food Safety Officer appointed by the Government aloire is competent to launch prosecution 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 very same judgment, the leamed Single Judge further held that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the 'food' within the definition of Section - 3(j) ofthe FSS Act and the manufacture, sale or l, t6 KL.J C.l.?- No.t 52 of2020 & batch exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is govemed by the provisions of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the provisions of IPC. The respondents - police are incompetent to investigate the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) of the FSS Acr 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 Section - 273 of lPC. 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 offbnce 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 (t) (Z) (3) (5) and Section - 26 of COTP Act is an illegality. The leamed Single Judge further held that registration of cases ior the offence under Section - 20 (2) read with 7 (2) of COTP Act is illegal. With the said findings, the leamed Single Judge has quashed the crimes and calendar cases in the said judgment. r. I 1',l KL,J Crl.P. No.15 2 of 2020 & &!ch /-,; I l. In Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasadhi Tripati Rao v. The State of Andhra pradeshs, a [eartred Singte Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravti had also an occasion to deal with the said issue. After referring to the contentions of the respective parties therein, various provisions of IpC, FSS Act, COTP Act and relying on the principle laid down in Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia], Joseph Kurian y. State of Kerala6, Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhant, M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (pvt) Ltd., v. State of U.p.7, Sanjay Anjay Stores v. Union of Indias, Boop Singh Tyagi v. Statee, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalr0 and Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the leamed Single Judge has quashed the FIRs / Calendar Cases. The leamed Single Judge referring to the law laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubder{ hetd that despite the said authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues. The said judgment attained finaliry. Even then, the police are registering cases against accused on the very same allegations for the very same offences. i) Referring to the provisions of Sections - 153, 1gg, 269,270, 271, 272, 273, 284, 328, 353 of IpC, the leamed Judge in Sri Jaganath Enterprisess held that the offences registered under the said Sections are not maintainable. It further held that the provisions of the COTP Act can only be pressed into service in the limited 5. zozo 1r; err 1ca.; zrs 1r.ruc1 6. 1995 (l) SCJ 277 7. 201I (2) Crimes 250 3. 2017 scc ontine cal 16323 '. zoo2 cfi.LJ-2872 '0. 1992 Supp (l) SCC jt5 circumstances only where there is violation ofsections - 4, 5, 6,7 and l0 of the COTP Act. By referring to rhe principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lallo and M/s. pepsico India Iloldings (Pvt) Ltd.7, the leamed Single Judge has quashed the proceedings in various crimes / calendar cases.

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

13. In Sayyed Hassan Salyed Subhanr, the Apex Court while dealing with legality ofthe 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 arLd 328 of IPC and Sections - 26 and 30 of the FSS Act where there is an allegation of traDsportation and sale of Gutka / Pan Masala erc., 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 mafter of the cases pending before the Bombay High Court. tr. 2020 Supreme (Ap) 348 19 KL.J C,t P No.tt2 of2020 & batch n

14. [n view of the authoritative pronouncement of law in the aforesaid judgments, as discussed above, coming to the facts ol the cases on hand, the allegations against the accused in respective cases are trarsportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku I gutka t khaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. In Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the learned Single observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section _ 270 of IPC and that manufachrring ofpan masala is not included in Section _ 273 of IPC and, therefore, the same is not an offence since it is not a noxious food. The leamed Single Judge has further observed in the saidjudgment which is as under: "..-.The act done by the petitioners 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 aansportation and if those products are consumed by human being, it would cenainly cause damage to the healtL Therefore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco is not by itself is not an offence under Section - 270 of IpC and it would fall within Section 270 of IpC."

15. 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 if food or drink is adulterated. There is no definition of 'adulteration' in IpC. The definition of 'adulterant' is found in the provisions ofthe FSS Act. Section - 3 (l) I I I 20 KL.J C.l.P. No.l t2 of 2020 & bakh (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulterant' which means a material which could make the 'food' r.rnsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded. According to Section - 272 of lPC, 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 I gutka I khaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the said allegation does not fall within the ambit of Section - 212 of IPC. Therefore, I agree with the principle laid down by the leamed Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raoll. i6. tn Joseph Kurian6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for Section - 272lPC 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 drink and knew that such article cannot be sold as food or drink. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the offence is completed on the introduction of the adulterant. 'Adulterant' would mean that a material which is mixed to make the 'food' unsale or drink unsafe. In the present case on haad, tobacco is not a food or 2t KL,J Crl P. No.l52 of 2020 & batch (, 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 ir:to service.

17. As far as Section - 32g of IpC is concemed, in the same judgment it was held as follows: "10. Io order to prove offence under Section 32g the prosocution is required to prove that the substance in questioo was a poisoa, or any stupe$iag, intoxicating or unwholesome drug etc, that the accused administered the substance to the comptainaat or caused the complainant to take such substance, that he did so with intent to cause hurt or knowing it to be likely 19 Orat he would thereby cause hun, or with the iotention to commit or facilitate the commissioo of aq offence . It is, therefore, essetrtial for tle prosecution to prove that the accused was directly respoosible for administering poison etc. or causing it to be taken by any persou, tbrough another. ... . ..,, Tobacco does not fit into this definition.

18. Section - 273 of IpC deals with sale of a noxious fbod or drink, and as per which, whoever sells, or offers or exposes fbr sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment specihed therein. Therefore, if a person olfers for sale a "food or &ink" any article which has become noxious or ls ln a state of unfit for ..food or drink,,. Thus, the said section would apply, when an article which has become noxious or which has been rendered noxious. It also applies to food or drink only. As held in Sri Jaganath Enterprisess, the word .noxious, is not defined in I f 22 KI,.J C P No. I t2 of 2020 & botch IPC or in FSS Act. As per the dictionary 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 purchase of bann:d products v,2., tobacco / tambaku / g ka lkhaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court' the contents of the complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section -273 oflPC

19. As far as section - 188 IPC is concemed ' as per the settled law on the subiecr, before an accused is charged' there must be; an order duly promulgated by the public servantl the public servant must have the lawful authority to promulgate the order; the person flouting the same should have knowledge about the order directing him to abstain from the act; he must disobey the said order with the knowledge; and such disobedience of the duly promulgated order should cause a danger to the human life etc ln 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 the authority to pass the orders only if the article of 'food' can causes danger or is injurious to health. 23 KL-J C.LP No.I 52 of 2020 &. batch

20. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor[ while deating with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, the leamed Single Judge ofthe combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under: '5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at tbree road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at onc specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistart Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 186l and is violated, Section 195 (l) (a) ofCode of Criminal Procedure ma::dates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concemed or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 ofCode of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1Xa) ofCode of Criminal Procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the lndian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an ". Ctimioal Petition No.5l23 of2009, decided on 17.09.2009 KL.T Crl-P No.l52 of 2020 & batch independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public me€ting 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 wimess to speak about the traflic jam caused by the road show. Bu! 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 caonot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under Indian 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 beiog in violation of Section 195 (l) (a) ofCode of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. As the complaint has failed due to its 7) uusustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the l"t accused aloae approached 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 Districtrr, wherein by relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Raorz and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Qourt in Bhajan Lalro more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that rr. Criminal Pertion No.15248 of20l6, decided on 26.10.2016 25 KL.J C.t P No. tJ2 of 2020 & botch where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provrslons ofthe Code or the concemed Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuaoce of the proceedings and-/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned 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 ClP,C. It was also further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical delect ofobtaining 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) of Cr.P.C.

22. Y ide Notifi cation No.50 1/F53- 1 /202O, dated, 06.0 1 .2020, the Commissioner o[ Food Safety, Telangana Dtectorate of Institute ol 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 dnd chewing tobacco products, like chap tobacco, pure tobacco, khaini, kharra, scented tobacco / flavoured tobacco or by whatever name locally it is called packed in sachets / pouches I package in the entire Stage of Telangana under FSS Act, 2006. It is for one year. Vide Notification No.505/FSS- l/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 j L i l I )6 KI,J Cd.P. No.t52 o12020 & batch 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 sihrations and for prohibiting the distribution and sale of any article ol a food cannot be lost sight of. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the above judgments including the judgments in Chidurala Shyamsubder', Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raorr. 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 concerned, it deals with causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence. As per the said provision, whoever administem to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupeffing, intoxicating 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 with 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 inteat to cause hurt to such person or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an olfence or knowing it to be likely that he will 21 KL.J C .P. No 152 of2020 &batch thereby cause hurt. As stated above, the allegations in the entire batch of criminal petitions are lacking. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaints / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of Section - 328 of IPC. . 24. As far as Section _ 336of IpC is concemed, it deals with an act endangering life or personal safeqr 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 may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both. In the complaints / charge sheets, there is no such allegation of rash and negligent act which endangers human life or personal salety of others. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaints / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of Section - 336 of IPC.

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

26. As far as Section - 269 of IpC is concerned, 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 28 KL.J C,l-P. No 152 of2020 & Mtch which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection ofany disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with hne, or with both. But, a perusal of the contents of complaints / charge sheets in the present batch of cases, such ingredients are lacking and, therefore, Section - 269 of IPC does not arise in the present batch of cases.

27. It 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 attracted to the cases in this batch. I 2E. As far as the offences under FSS Act is concemed, as already discussed above, in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the leamed Single Judge following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lalro hetd that the police are incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) ofthe FSS Act, investigating into the offences along with other offences under the provisions of the IPC. It was further held that filing charge sheet is a grave illegality, as the Food Safety Officer 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 lor the offences 29 KT, I C,lP No l, of2o2o & tptch ) under Sections - 188, 270 and,273 of IpC. Therefore, in the present batch ofcases, enrertaining the complainrs / filing the charge sheets by the police is conhary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubder{. . 29. With regard to the offences under COTp Act, it is relevant to mention the objects and the reasons of the said Act itselt clearly state that the act is meant to prohibit the advertisement of, and to provide for the regulation of trade and co[lmerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, cigarettes and orher tobacco products and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. A reading ofthe said objects of the said Act would reveal that a total ban of tobacco products was not envisaged try the said Act. The parliament merely felt it expedient to control the advertisement and sale of tobacco products. As noted earlier in rhe order, Section _ 3 (p) of the COTp Act and the schedule therein define tobacco products. pan masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the definition of tobacco products. Section _ 5 of the COTp Act deals with prohibition of advertisement of cigarene and other tobacco products only. No person, who is engaged in the production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or other products shall advertise the same. Similarly, no person having the control over a medium can advertise cigarettes or tobacco products, and no person shal be a part ofany advertisement.

30. Section - 7 of the COTP Act deals with the imposition of restriction on the sale, trade, commerce of tobacco products unless I I 30 KL.J C .P. No l t2 of 2O2O & htch every package of cigarette or tobacco product contains a specified waming (pictorial or otherwise). Section - 4 of the 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 l8 years are in an area within 100 yards of any educational instirution.

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 of tobacco products. 22 What is barred is merely the sale of these products to a person, who is below the age of l8 years and in an area within 100 yards of an educational instinrtion. The other aspects covered by Sections - 5 and 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 transportation, 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, tlre allegations against the petitioner in respective complaints / charge sheets are that they were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasiug the banned tobacco products.to the customers illegally in order to gain u,rongful profits. In view of the said allegation, it is apt to refer to Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act t' I 3I KL.J Crl.P. No.t 52 of2020 & batch /'l for betler appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question, and the same is as under: "20. Punishment for failure to give 6pecilied warning and nicotine and tar cotrtelts.- (l)... (2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do oot cootaill either on the . package or on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar conteots shall in the case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to oDe thousand rupees, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonrnent for a term which may extend to two years and with hne which may extend to three 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 br commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified waming on the said products. In view of the same, the contents of the complaints / charge sheets lack the ingredients of Section - 20 (2) ot the COTP Act. Even, there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain labels with stanrtory warning. 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 Shyamsubdera. 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 G\ 32 KL.J Crl-r. No 152 of2020 & bakh principle laid down by the leamed Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder{, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raorl.

34. For the foregoing discussion and the authoritative principle of law, Criminal Petition Nos. 3768, 3879, 4046, 4077, 4098, 4099, 4100, 41 02, 4r4t, 41s1, 4t57, 4t82, 4187, 4247, 4249, 4251, 4258, 4262, 427 7, 4405, Mts, 4542, 4615, 4640, 4681, 4727, 477 5 and 4825 of 2021 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 OfEcers / Investigating Officers 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, 4O7O, 4ll0,4ll9, 4140, 4178, 4194, 4216, 4230, 4161, 4612, 4622 and, 4632 of 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 return of the seized property / vehicle and the Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with Iaw. 33 KL.J C.l P No- I 52 ol 2020 & bot h I As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending in all the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed. osiltJt Ly,2o2l !g!g: L.R. copy to be marked. (B/O.) Msr K. LAKSIIMAN, J