Criminal Petition No. 16046 of 2024 · The High Court · 2025

Order

This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), seeking to quash the proceed ings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.699 of 2024 of PS Jangaon, Warangal District, registered for I the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 275 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha,2023. ) )

2. Heard Mr. Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veerarnalla, learned Additional Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order, dated 05.07.2021 in Crl.P.No.152 of 2020 and batch.

4. Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the issue in the present Criminal Petition is covered by the earlier order in the above Criminal Petition. 2 ,s,l Crl.P.No.16046 of2024

5. In vierv of the said representation and as the matter is squarely covered by the order in the above Climinal Petition, this Criurinal Petition is allowed in terms of the above said order, adopting the reasoning contained therein. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Clin.re No.699 of 2024 of PS Jangoan, Warangal District, are hereby quashed. Fufther, the Investigating Officer is hereby directed to return the seized property ol1 proper ider.rtification and verification under due acknowledgement. Pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A,V.S. PRASAD REGI R ASSISTAN I SE ON OFFICER To, l.TheStationHouseofficer'JangoanPoliceStation,WarangalDistrict. Z. fwo dCi to tne Public Piosec"utor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 3. Ohe CC to Sri Y.'Bala Murali. Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad. [OUTI Njb/gh 6 (ALoNGWTHAcoPYoFoRDERDATEDoS,oT.2o2llNCRL.P.No.lS2of2o2o & BATCH) \ HIGH COURT DATED:0610112025 ORDER CRLP.No.16046 of 2024 TASE r€ o \ir.. Yr* 0 7 JAt'i 2[25 2 t O6 +_' t ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETTTION @'en XF IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD CORAM: * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSIIMAI\ + CRINIINAL PE'IITION No.l52 Ot'2020 & Batch 7o Delivered on: 05-07-2021 Between in Crl.P No. 152 f 2020 o

# Mr. Mohd. Jameel Ahmed Petitioner Vs. $ The State ofTelangaoa, rep.by Public Prosecutor High Court ofTelangana, Hyderabad & another Respondents Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthy Mr. K. Surelder Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Ms. P. Radhika Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti Ms. C. Sunitha Kumari Mr. Koudadi Ajay Kumar Mr. S.M. Subhan Ms. N. Arthi Mr. Y. Bala Murali Mr. Boggula Raju Mr. S. Chandrasekhar Mr. V. Yadukrishna Sainath Respective leamed counsel Leamed Public Prosecutor I For respective Petitioners ^ For Respondents < Gist > Head Note ? Cases Referred r. 20lE ArR (sc) 5346 2.20rcCn.L.t.2401 3. 2019 SCC onlide Bom 1857 4. Crl.P, No.373t of20lE & batch, d€cided on 27.0t.2018 5- 2020 (t) ALT (Crl.) 215 (APHC) 6_ 1995 (r) SCJ 277 7. 201I (2) Crirnes 250 E. 2017 SCC OnlineCal 16323 9. 2002Cn.L.t.2t72 lO. 1992 Supp (l) SCC 335 Il. 2020Suprrtu€(AP)348 12. Criminal Paitiod No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 13. Criminal Pctition No.15248 of20l6, decided on 26.10.2016 'l KL,J C.t.P. No 152 of 2020 & bdtch HON'Bt,E SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.ls2. r53. I55. 162 & 5E26 OF 2020 AND 3498.

3500. 3509. 3514. 376t. 3879. 4046. 4070. 4077. 409E, 4099. 4 r 00. 4102. 4 t 10. 4t19. 4140.4141. 4151. 415',1, 417E. 4182. 4187. 4194. 4216. 4230. 4247.4249.

4251. 425E. 4262. 4271. 436t.4405. 4415. 4542.4612. 46 r 5. ,1622. 4632. 46{0. 46E1. 4727. 4775 & 4t25 0F 2021 COMMONORDER: All the above Criminal Petitions are filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners - accused in respective Crimes / Calendar Cases. The details of relevant Crimes / Calendar Cases, offences alleged, nature of offences etc., are mentioned in the following tabular form: sl. No. OI | 02. 03 04 05

06. 07 Crl.P No. Crime No 2l1D0 of PS Manoharabad 3312t of PS Kadam 78/21 of PS (T) Adilabad 4077nt 2lDl of PS Easgoan 4M6/21 409Et2l 4099D1 4t00t2t 08 4t02/21 09 4t4tt2l l0 u. t2. 4t5t/21 I 4157Dt 4t82nt 18521 of Ps (T) Nirmd No.362l of PS Koutala No.3t/21 of PS Ersgoan 45521 of PS KukaQally 45121 of PS Chiragpally 19821 of PS Chounrppal 134/21 of PS Chityal (NLG) 74,21 of PS Raghunadhpalem 2021 of PS (T) Mancherial Accused Number accused accused Al &2 Al toJ accus€d accrrsed accused Allo3 accused Al to4 At &2 accused Offeoces allegedly cornmiBed 272, 2't3 IPC & 20 (2) lw -7(2) of COTPA 270 & 2'73 tPC -do- do-

270. 213 IPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA 270 &273 tPC 270 & 271 tPC 336, 273 & tE8 IPC & 59 (i) of FSSA 270 & 273 IPC & 2A\\ t/w 7(21 or COTPA 272 & 27f tPC & 20 (2) of COTPA 272, 273 & 3U tPc&20(l)&7 (3) ofCOTPA 270&273 IPC -do- Natr.rre ofoffence Trans?o(ation ofAmber tobacco Sale of banned bbacco producas Sale of gutka/Obacco illegally in godown Poss€ssion ofgutka /tobacco in pan shop Transportatioo of prohibited sutka Possession ofobacco products in the house Poss€ssion of barhed gutka & other lobacco items in pan shop Transportation and sale ofprohibited robacco products T.airportation of tobacco paoducts Slorage of tob&co producs for sale Purchasc and sale of prohibited tobacco poducls Transportation of bamed tobacco/gutka Possessiofl ofbanned tobacco products I Ctl P. No ItZ of2020 &batch .t -do 14 l5 t6 t1 18 424'7/21 4249/Zt 425t /2t 425E/2t I 4262t21

19. 4211/2t 20 2t 44t5t2t 22 4542nt 23

21. 46t5/2t 25 4681/2t 61,21 of PS I I Town Adilabad l0l/21 of PS I Town Adilabad 9021 of PS I Town Adilabad 9l/21 of PS I Town Adilabad 107,21 of PS I Town Adilabad 162,21 ot PS AMullapurmet 20221 of PS I Town Nalgonda 2l2l of PS II (T) Naleooda 87/21 of PS Ul (T) Ko&agudem 225/21 of PS Niamal Town 89/20 of PS Mamada 186/21 of PS Peddavmra 26 4721/2t 164/2t of PS Adibada At &2 accused AI&2 Al rol accused accused Al&2 Al&2 AI A2 A2 27 4775/2t I 28 214121 of PS I (T) Nalsonda 245/21 of PS Kharnrnam (R) Al to4 Al&2 Possession ofbanned gutka producis Sale ofgutka and lobacco paoducts About to transpo( noxious gu&a aod tobacco products Sale ofbanned gu&a and tobacco products Transponation ofgutka and tobacco producis Sale of banoed tobacco (tambaL:u) products in Transportation of gutka/tobacco products Possession of banned gutka /tobacco products Possession oftobacco products in kiraoa shop Possession of prohibiled tobacco products for sale Transportation of banned robacco/gutka pockets Possession ofbanncd gutka & tobacco products in kirana shop Transportation of cigaretle or other tobacco producrs withour valid license Sale ofgrtka & khaini Transporralion of banned gu&a -do -do- It9, 272, 273 & l28 tPC tEE, 212 & 273 tPC -do lE8, 269, 270, tPC & 273 rlw 3 ofEDA & 5l '4 (b) ofDMA 170 & 213 tPC -do' r^v 14 tPC 328 tl\N 5ll,272 & 273 tPC 270, 272 & 273 IPC & 20 (2) of COTPA 328,272, 271 & 188 rPC 328, 270 & 273 r/w 5l I IPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA

29. 30 3l 32 t53/20 t55/20 t62n0 33

35. l5l5/19 of t-AJMFC, Warangal 2724119 of XVII ACMM, Hvd. 15lt/19 of I-AJMFC, Wamngal 4737/18 of XI AMM, Sec.bad Special Magistratc of tI Class, Jagtial 216D0 of JFCM, Devarkonda 963/19 of JFCM, Miryalguda CALENDAR CASES I A2 A2 A] A2 270, 273 & r88, 420 IPC & 58 ofFSSA 272 & 273 IPC & 59 of FSSA. 2006 420, 270 & 271 IPC & 58 ofFSSA 2-t2, 211, 336 & 420 tPC & 20 (2\ ol COTPA Transportation of banned zarda prod!cts Sale ofzarda iltegally Transportalion of banned zarda Sale of protubited gutka and chewing tobacco products At &2 r88, 270 & 273IPC Transportation of Anrber gutka pockets Al &2 Al to4 420 & 271 IPC 420 & 273 rrc & 20 (ii) of coTPA.2@3 Sale of bamed tobacco aod gutka products Transportation of tobacco and gutka prDducts I KL.J Ctl P. No.l52 of2020 & batch l8E, 270 & 273 tPC, 20 (2hf coTPA, SolEDA& 51 (b) of DMA tit. 270, 273 & 420 I?C & 20 (2) of COTPA 272 & 273 LPC & 20 (2) (/w 7 (2) of COTPA 270 & 273 rPc & 20 (2) dw 7 (2) of COTPA 270, 27t,272 & 273 rlw 34 tPc Sec.3 ofEDA 272 & 273 IPC & Sec.20 (l), 20 (2) of COTPA 270 & 273 rPc & 20 (2) OfCOPTA 188, 212 & 273 tPC & 20 (2)&5of COTPA 270 & 2'73 IPC &. 20 (2',) ofCOTPA Sto.age of bam€d gutka and o$er tobacco pmducts illegally for sale Supply of gutka and ofier tobacco pmducts T.ansportation of Aober tobacco Tmnsporlation ofpan masala and barmed gutka Tmnsportation ofcotton seeds and banned gutka Transportation of bained tobacco aod gu*a Purchase and sale of bamed gurka Sale oftobacco products in his shop and dilobeyiug the nrles imposed by Covt. in Not.No.505/FSS-l12ldL6. l.2l Transportation of Amber gu*, I I At &2 -do- T.aesportatioo of gutka/pan masala l\l &2 270 &2'73IPC Possession of tobacco Foduats illegally for sale Sole laccused I At &2 -do {o- A] {o- r/w l4 rPc & 20 {2) OfCOTPA Purchase and sale ofprohibited guka pockets Possession olgu*a paclets at bus stand fo. sale illegally Transponation of banncd tobacco prcducts 36 3509/2t 452!20 of XXV MMC, Ibrahimpatao At &2

17. 3514/Zt I 61U19 of XXV MMC, Al to8 Al &2 Al to5 Alto4 I Al &2 accusd accused Al &2 I l8 't9 41t0/2t

40. 4|9/21 4l 4t40Dl 12 4t78/2t 43 4t94/21 547/21 of PJMFC, Gajwel 509120 of Spl.PCR Mobile Court<um- JMFC, Aditabad 512120 oi Spl.PCR Mobile Coun-cum- ,MFC, Adilabad STC No.202l of IV AMM- cuft-ry AJCJ, L.B. Nasa, 810/21 of IAJMFC, Kharrunam 616'lDl of XVII ACMM, Nampally .1{ 4il6a I 15 16 4361/2t

47. 46tA2t i 48 4622n1 49 lzgEzl of PJMFC, Kham.naln E29nl of PJMFC, Khamnram l0t/21 of AJMFC, Asifabad 5)3DO of AJMFC, Nirtual 622/t9 AJMFC Nirmal 413D0 AJMFC Nirmal

2. Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, Mr. Gajanand Chalcavarthy, Mr. K. Surender, Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Ms. P. Radhika, 5 KL.J Ctl.P. No r52 of2020 & batch 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. Yadukrishna Sainath, [earned 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 ofthis common onder.

4. The main allegations against the petitioners - accused are that they were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku I gutka / khaini / 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 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'IPC'); Sections - 20 (l),20 (2) and 5 read with.7(2) and 7 (3) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'COTP Act'); Sections - 58 and 59 ofthe 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 C.l.P. No.l52 of 2020 & batctr

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 1[e ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused. For the offences under the provisions of FSS Act, only Food Safety Offrcer is having power to initiate criminal proceedings against accused and the police are not having any power to register a case for the offences uoder the provisions ol 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 of the offences under Sections - 269,27O,271, 272,273,328 and 336 of IPC. i) According to them, there is no violation of Sections - 20 (l), 20 (2) and 5 read with 7 (2) and 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 - t88 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 Ctt.P. No. t 52 of 2020 & batch I

6. On the other hand, leamed Pubtic Prosecutor referring to the principte laid down in the State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed llassan Sayyed Subhan' by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao v. The State of Maharashtraz and Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia v. The State of Maharashtral by the Bombay High Court would submit that police are having power to register cases under various provisions ol 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 barured products viz., tobacco / tambaku I g$ka I khaini / zarda / pan masala respectively. According to him, the accused have to face either investigation or trial and prove their innocence, and instead of doing so, they have filed the present criminal petitions under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. which cannot be considered at this stage. i) With the above said submissions, leamed Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the above criminal petitions.

7. In view of the above rival submissions, it is apposite to extract the relevant provisions of IPC, COTP Act, FSS Act, ED Act and DM Act, which are as under: '. 2or8 AtR (sc) 5348 ' . znt6 ci. L.t . 24ol r. 2019 scc &rLine Bom 1857 3 KL,J C.t.P. No. r 52 of 2020 & batch RELEVAN ,t PRO\'ISIONS UNDER IPC 'lEE. Disobedience to order duly promulgrted by public servant. Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant tawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with cenain properry in his possessioo or under his managemeDt, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or teods to cause obstruction, amoyaoce or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, !o any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a terrn which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to (wo hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or treods to cause dang€r to human life, health or safety. or causes or tends to cause a riot or affiay, shall be punished with imprisonment of either dosc.iption for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand nrpees, or with both. Explanation.-tt is not necessary that the offender should inteod to produce harrn. or cootemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys. and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servaat lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain. stre€t. A knowingly disobeys the order, atrd thereby causes daager ofriot. A has committed the offence defined in this section." "269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.-Whoever unlawfully or negligendy does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of aay disease daEgerous to life, shall be punished with imprisorureut of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." *270. Malignent act likely to spre.d iufection of dis€rse dangerous to life.-Wboever malignantly does any act which 9 KL.J Crl.P. No. t 52 of 2020 & batch is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread tbe infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonmeot of either descriptiotr for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." "271. Disobedierce to quarantine ru[e.-Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Govemment for putting any vessel into a state ofquaraDtine, or for regulating the itrtercourse of vessels in a state of qua.antine wi(h the shore or with other vessels, or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." "272. Adulteration of food or dritrk intended for sale.- Whoever adulterates atry article of food or drink so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, htending to sell such article as food or drink, or klowing it to b€ likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment ofeither description for a term which may exteod to six moEths, or with hne which may exteod to one thousand rupees, or with both." "273. Sale of troxious food or drink.-Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, aay article which has beeo rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state uufit for food or drinlq knowing or having reason to believe that the same is oox- ious as food or drink, sha[[ be punished with imprisonmeot of either description for a term which may extend to six mooths, or with fine which may extend to oue thousand rupees, or with both." "32t. Causing hurt by meaus of poison, etc., with intetrt to commit an offence.-Whoever admidsters to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or atry stuperying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with iDteEt to cause hult to such person. or with inrctrt to comrnit or to facilitate the commission ofan offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of t0 KL.J C P. No.I t2 of 2020 a barch either description for a term which may extend to teo years' and shatl atso be liable to fine." "336. Act endangering life or persotral s'fety of others'- Wtoever does atry act so rashty or negligentty as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extetrd to (hree months' or with irne which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees' or with both " "420. Cheating 8trd dishotrestly inducing delivery of property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishouesdy induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any persoo' or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security. or anythiog which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security' shall be putrished with imprisonment of either descriptioo for a term which may extend to seven y€ars, and shatl also be liable to hne." "34, Acts done by several persons itr furtherrnce of commotr intentiotr.-when a criminal act is done by several persof,s in furtherance ofthe common intention ofa[[, each of such persons is tiable for that act in the same marulff as if it were done by him atone." "511. Punishment for attempting to commit offeDces punishable with imPrisonment for life . or other imprisonment.-Whoeve r attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisooment, or to cause such an offence to bo committed' aDd in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence' for a term which may extend to ooe-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of isrprison- ment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both." I KL-J C,l P. No t52 of2020 & ba,ch RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER COTP ACT "5. Prohibitioo of adyertisement of cigarettes atrd other tobacco products.-([) No person engaged in, or purported to be engaged in the productior, supply or distribution ofcigarettes or aoy other tobacco products shall advertise and no person having cootrol over a medium shall cause to be adve(ised cigarettes or any other tobacco products through that medium aod uo persoo shalt take part in any advertisemeDt which directly or itrdi.ectly suggests or promotes the use or consumption ofcigarettes or any oth€r tobacco products. (2) No person, for any dircct or indirect pecuoiary benefit, shall- (a) display, cause to display, or permit or authorise to display any advertisement ofcigarettes or atry other tobacco product; or O) sell or cause to sell, or permit or authorise to sell a film or video tape containing advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (c) distribute, cause to distribute, or permit or authorise to distribute ro the public aoy leaflet, hand-bill or documeot which is or which contains an advertisement of cigaretles or any other tobacco product; or (d) erect, exhibit, fix or retain upon or over any land, building, wall, hoarding, frame, post or structule or upon or in any vehicle or shall display in any manner whatsoever in any place any advertisemeot ofcigarettes or any other tobacco ploduct: Provided that this sub-section shall oot apply in relation (a) an advenisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product in or on a package containing cigarettes or any other tobacco product; (b) advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product which is displayed at th€ entrance or inside a warehouse or a shop where cigarettes and any otler tobacco products are offered for distribution or sale. (3) No person, shall, under a cootract or otherwise promotc or agree to promote the use or consumptioo oF (a) cigarettes or aoy other tobacco product; or (b) any trade mark or brand name of cigarettes or atry other tobacco product in exchange for a sponsorship, gift, prize or scholarship given or agreed to be given by anoth€r person." "20. Punishment for failure to give specified warning and cotine and tar cotrteots.- (l)Any peison who produces or manufactures cigarettes or tobacco products, which do not contain, either on the package or t2 Kt,l C,t P. No 152 of 2020 & batch on their label. the specified waming aad the nicotine and tar contents, shall in the case of hrst coqviction be punishable with imprisooment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to five ftousaud rupees, or with both, and for the second or subsequeot conviction. with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to teo thousand rupees. (2) Ary person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either oo the package or on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar cootents shall in the case of hrst convictiotr be punishabte with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with hne which may extend to one thousaod rupees, or with both' an4 for the second or subsequent convictioo, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees." "7. Restrictions otr trade 8nd commerce in, and production' supply and distribution of cigarettes and oth€r tobscco products.- (l) No persoo shatt, directly or indirectly, produce, supply or disaibute 6 cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him bears thereou, or on its label such specified waming including a pictorial waming as may be prescribed- (2) No person shatl carry on trade or commerce in cig'arettes or ally other tobacco products uDless every package ofcigarettes or any other tobacco products sold, supplied or distributed by him bears thereoo, or on its label, the specilted waming. (3) No peson shall iEport cigarettes or aoy other tobacco products for distribution or supply for a valuable consideratiotr 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 specihed waming. (4) The specified waming shall appear on not less than onc of the largest panels of the package in which cigarettes or any othel I3 KL.J Crl.P. No.lt2of2020 & barch tobacco products have beea packed for distribution, sale or supply for a valuable consideration. (5) No person sball, directly or indirecrty, produce, supply or distribute cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or ary other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him indicates thereon, or on is label, the nicotine arld tar coote[ts on each cigarette or as the case may be on other tobacco products along with the maximum permissible limits thereof: Provided that the nicotine and tar contents shall not exceed the maximum permissible quantiry thereofas may be prescribed by rules made under this Act." RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDEIT F.S.S. Act: '5E. Peoalty for cootrave[tions for which no specilic penalty is provided.-Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or thc rules or regulations made thereunder, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided in this Chapter, shall be liable to a peoalty which may extend to two lakh rupees." "59. Punishment for unsafe food.-A-ny person who, whether by himself or by any other pcrson on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for humao consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,- (i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extcnd to six motrths and also with fine which may extetrd to one lakh rupees; (ii) where such failure or contraventioo results in a non-grievous i[jury, with imprisonment for a term which may exteud to one year and also with fine which may extend to tlree lakh rupees; (iii) where such failure or contravention results in a grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and also with fine which may extend to five [a]h rupees; (iv) where such failure or cootlaveotiotr results in death, with imprisotrment for a term which shall not be less thaa seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also with hne which shall not be less than ten lakh rup€es." 1,1 KL.J Crt.P. No.l t2 of 2D0 & botch & RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER E.D. ACT: "3. Petralty. Any persoo disobeying aay regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have commiued an offence punishable under sectioo t88 of the Iodian penal Code (4s of 1860 )." RELEVANT PROVISI ON TINDER D.N{. ACT: "51. Punishment for obstructioo, etc.,- (l) Whoever, without reasonable cause (l) Whoever, without reasonable cause " (a) obstructs arty officer or employee of the Central Government or the State Govemment, or a person authorised by the National Authority or Stare Authority or District Aurhority in the discharge ofhis futrctions under this Act; or (b) refuses to comply with aoy direction given by or on behalf of the Central Govemment or the State Govemment or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the Disrict Authority under this Act. shall ou conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend 10 one year or with fitre, or with both, and if such obstructioo or refusal to comply with directions results in toss of lives or imminetrt daoger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. notes on clauses Clauses 5l to 58 (Secs. 5l to 5g) seeks to lay down what will constitute ao offence in terms of obstructioo ofthe functions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of false warning, failure of an olficer to perform the duty imposed on him uuder the Act without due perrnission or lawful excuse, or his conaivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide for penalties for these offences."

8. The /rs involved in the present petitions is no more res integra. A leamed Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State ofTelangana and the State of Andhra pradesh in Chidurata Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana{ 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.l73l of20iE & barch, decided oo 27.08.2018 l5 KLJ Crl.P. No. l5 2 of 2020 a bakh $ in several judgments, the learned Single Judge had framed the issues, which are as under: "l) Whother tlle respoodent/ Sub-lnspector of Police, is competent to investigatc into the offence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(l) of FSS Act? 2) Whether the petitioners in all the p€titions are found committing any act with malicious intention, with knowledge and reason to believe that such act likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life? And whether the petitioners selling or offering or exposing for sale as food or drink, atry article which has been rendered or has become noxious or is in a state unfit for food or drinl or reasoo to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink? [f so, are they liable to be proceeded for the offence puoishable under Sections 2'10 arr,d 273 IPC.?"

9. After an elaborate discussion and on consideration of various aspects, the leamed Single Judge has held that the police cannot take cognizance of the offence, to investigate into and 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 alone is competent to launch prosecution for those two offences. With the said findings, the learned 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(i) olthe FSS Act and the manufacture, sale or l6 KL.J Crl.P. No lt2 of2020 & batch exposing for sale ol tobacco etc., is governed by the provisions of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the provisions of IPC. The respondents - police are incompetent to investigate the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) of the FSS Act and allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the statements do not disclose the commission ofthe offence punishable under Section - 273 of IPC since transportation of noxious food is not included under Section - 2T 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 inGct or cause any disease on account of transportation and if those products are consumed by human being, it would certainly cause damage to the health. Therefore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco by itself is not an offence under Section - 270 of IPC. Pan Masala is not a tobacco product to fall within the purview of COTP Act. Therefore, the provisions of the COTP Act have no application, thereby registration of crime on the ground of violation of Sections - 7 (l) (2) (3) (5) and Section - 26 ofCOTP Act is an illegality. The learned Single Judge further held that registration of cases for the offence under Section - 20 (2) read with 7 (2) of COTP Act is illega[. With the said frndings, the leamed Single Judge has quashed the crimes and calendar cases in the said judgment. l'7 KLJ C.l P. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch

11. In Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasadhi Tripati Rao v. The State ofAndhra Pradeshs, a leamed Single Judge ofthe High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amarawi had also an occasion to deal with the said issue. After referring to the contentions ofthe respective parties therein, various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and relying on the principle laid down in Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia3, Joseph Kurian v. State of Kerala6, Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr, 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 llaryana v. Bhajan Lalro 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 Shyamsubdera held thal despite the said authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues. The said judgment attained finality. Even then, thc police are registering cases against accused on the very same allegations for the very same offences. i) Referring to the provisions of Sections - 153, 188, 269,270, 271, 272, 273, 284, 328, 353 of IPC, thc leamed Judge in Sri Jaganath Enterprisess held that the offences registered under the said Sections are not maintainable. [t further held that the provisions of the COTP Act can only be pressed into service in the limited 1995 ( t) scJ 277 2ot I (2) crides 250 '. 2o2o (l) ALT (crl.) 215 (APHC) 5. 7. 3. 2017 scc online cal 16323 '. 2N2c.l.L.r.28't2 '0. 1992 Supp (l ) SCC 335 18 KI. J Ctl.P No.l 52 ol 2020 & bqtch circumstances only where there is violation ofSections - 4,5,6,7 and 10 of the COTP Act. By referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lalr0 and lWs. Pepsico India Holdings (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 Shyamsubdera.

13. In Sayyed Hassan Sayyed 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 hled challenging the registration of FIRs for the offences under Sections - 188, 272, 273 and 328 of IPC and Sections - 26 and 30 of the FSS Act where there is an allegation of transportation and sale of Gutka / Pan Masala etc., held that the judgment .of Bombay High Court is contrary to the provisions ofthe Act and law laid down by it. With the said finding, the Apex Court remitted the matter to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration on the issue that whether the aforesaid offbnces are made out in the FIRs, which are subject matter olthe cases pending before the Bombay High Court. r'. 2020 Suprcme (AP) l4ti l9 KL.J C.l P. No 152 o12020 & tukh

14. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law in the aforesaid judgments, as discussed above, coming to the facts of the cases on hand, the allegations against the accused in respective cases are transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products ,i2., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. In Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the leamed 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 manufacturing 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 said judgment 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 accouot of transportation and if those products are consumed by human being, it would certainly cause damage to the health. Therefore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco is not by itself is not an offence 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) 20 KI-J CrLl'. No.l52 of 202t) & batch (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulterant' which means a material which could make the 'food' unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded. According to Section - 272 of IPC, if a material is used to make the lood 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 v2., tobacco / tambaku I gl;tka I khaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the said allegation does not fall within the ambit of Section - 272 ol IPC. Therefore, I agree with the principle laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raoll.

16. In Joseph Kurian6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for Section - 272IPC to be attracted, the following should be present. (l) That the articlc involved was food and drink meant to be consumed by live persons; (2) that the accused adultlrated 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 b€ 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' unsafe or drink unsafe. In the present case on hand, tobacco is not a food or 2l Ctl P No tt) o12020 & h.ch 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 into service.

17. As far as Section - 328 of IPC is concemed, in the same judgment it was held as follows: "10. In order to prove offence under Section 328 the prosecution is requ ed to prove tbat the substance io question was a poison. or any stuperying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug etc, thar the accused administered the substance to the complainant or caused the complainant to take such substance, that he did so with intent to cause hurt or knowing it to be likely 19 that he would thereby cause hurt, or with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence. It is, therefore, essential for the pros€cution to prove that the accused was directly responsible for administering poison €tc. or causing it to be takeo by any person, through another......." Tobacco does not fit into this definition.

18. Section - 273 of IPC deals with sale of a noxious food or drink, and as per which, whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unlit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment specified therein. Therefore, if a person offers for sale a "food or drink" any article which has become noxious or is in a state of unf,it lor "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 def,rned in I 22 KL,J C.t.P. No 152 of 2020 &ht h 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 crirninal petitions is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products vi:., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents ofthe complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients ofSection -273 ofIPC.

19. As far as section - 188 tPC is concemed , as per the settled law on the subject. belore an accused is charged, there must be; an order duly promulgated by the public servant; 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 lile etc. In Boop Singh Tyagie a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that right to promulgate the ordinance/order is also an issue which is being raised, because under the FSS Act, the Commissioner of Food Safety alone has the authority to pass the orders only if the article of'food' can causes danger or is injurious to health. 23 KL.J Crl-P. No.l52 of2020 & batch t

20. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorr2 while dealing with the oflences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, the leamed Single Judge of the 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 one specified place is kue, zuch a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 186l could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant 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, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (l) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint il 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 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Lnspector 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(1)(a) ofCode of Criminal Procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Sectiou 283 of the Indian 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 r?. Criminat Petition No.532l of2009, decided on 17.09.2009 )4 KL.J Ctl P. No 152 o12020 & batch ,t independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. [n so lar as the obstruction in any public way is concemed, rvhich can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resul(ed in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guiltSr zens 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 being in violation of Section 195 ( I ) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. As the complaint has failed due to its 7) unsustainability, the proceedings iD their entirety have to fail, though the l'1 accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petitioo."

21. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.I{.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari Districtrs, wherein by relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama RaoD and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lalr0 more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that rr. Criminal Petition No.l5?4E ot20l6, decided on 26,10.2016 25 KL.J CrLP. No.lt2 of 2020 & batch where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concemed Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and,/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concemed Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, it was held that the proceedings in the said C.C. were quashed by exercising power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It was also further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport ofSection - 195 (l) (a) of Cr.P.C.

22. Yide Notification No.50l /FSS- l/2020, dated M.01.202O, the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana Directorate of Institute of Prevcntive Medicine, Public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, restricted the manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation and sale of gutka / pan masala, which contains tobacco and nicotine, as ingredients and 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 / package in the entire Stage of Telangana under FSS Act, 2006. It is for one year. Vide Notification No.505/FSS- 1/2021, dated 06.01.2021, the same was extended for one more year. As per the information fumished and instructions received, several writ petitions were hled challenging the said ?.6 Crt-P. No.l52 of 2020 & batch Notifications before this Courr 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 of the said issue. It is also relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded back the matter to this Court. Therefore, such a notification can only be issued for emergency situations and for prohibiting the distribution and sale of any article of a food cannot be 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 Rao'l. According to this Court, Section - 188 of IPC will not atrract to the allegations leveled against the petitioners herein in this batch of criminal petitions.

23. As far as Secrion - 328 of IPC is concemed, it deals with causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence. As per the said provision, whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupe$ing, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commir 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 hne. Therefore, there should be administering poison, intoxicating etc., with intent to cause hurt to such person or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will 27 KL.J Crl P No.l52 of 2020 & batch thereby cause hun. As stated above, the allegations in the entire batch of criminal petitions are lacking. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents ofthe complaints / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of Section - 328 of IPC. ' 24. As far as Section - 336 oflPC is concerned, it deals with an act endangering life or personal safety of others, and as per which, whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with impris- onment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both. [n the complaints / charge sheets, there is no such allegation of rash and negligent act which endangers human life or personal safety of others. Therefore, according to &is Court, the contents of the complaints / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of Section - 316 of IPC.

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

26. As far as Section - 269 of IPC is 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 28 KL.J Crl-r No 152 of2020 & batch 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 fine, or with both. But, a perusal of the contents of complaints / charge sheets in the prcsent batch of cases, such ingredients are lacking and, therefore, Section - 269 of IPC does not arise in the present batch of cases.

27. In view ol the above said discussion, according to this Court, transponation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of tobacco products arc not totally banned in the State of Telangana and also in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sections - 269, 27O,271,272 and 273,328,336 and 420 of IPC are attracted to the cases in this batch.

28. 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 held that the police are incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (1) ofthe FSS Act, investigating into the offences along with other offences under the provisions ol the IPC. It was further held that frling charge sheet is a grave i[legality, as the Food Safety Oflicer alone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet following the Rules laid down under Sections - 4l and 42 of FSS Act. In the present case, the police have registered the crime for the offences l9 KL.J Crl.P No t52 oI)020 & tutch under Sections - 188, 270 and 273 of [PC. Therefore, in the present batch ofcases, entertaining the complaints / filing the charge sheets by the police is contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera.

29. With regard to the offences under COTP Act, it is relevant to mention the objects and the reasons of the said Act 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 and other tobacco products and for mafters connected therewith or incidenol thereto. A reading of the said objects of the said Act would reveal that a total ban of tobacco products was not envisaged by the said Act. The Parliament merely felt it expedient to control the advertisement and sale of tobacco products. As noted earlier in the order, Section - 3 (p) of the COTP Act and the schedule therein define tobacco products. Pan masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the definition of tobacco products. Section - 5 of the COTP Act deals 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 advertise cigarettes or tobacco products, and no person shall be a part ofany advefiisement.

30. Section - 7 of the COTP Act deals with the imposition of restriction on the sale, trade, commerce of tobacco products unless 30 KI, J C.t P No.l52 of ?020 & batch every package of cigarette or tobacco product contains a specilied 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 18 years are in an area within 100 yards of any educational institution.

31. Areadingof this Act, particularly Sections -4,5,6and7 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 18 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) ofthe COTP Act is concerned, as stated above, the allegations against the petitioner in respective complaints / charge sheets are that they were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned tobacco products to the customers illegally in order to gain *nongful profits. In view of the said allegation, it is apt to refer to Secrion - 20 (2) of the COTP Act 3l KL'J C.l.P. No 152 of 2020 & batch for better appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question, and the same is as under: "20. Punishment for failure to givc specified waruing and nicotine and tar contetrts.- (l)... (2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not cotrtain either on the package or on their label, the specified waming and the nicotine aod tar contents shall in the casc of hrst conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to ooe year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and, for the secoud or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with tine which may extend to three thousand rupees."

33. Thus, Section - 20 ofCOTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified waming and nicotine and tar contents. But, in the complaints I charge sheets, there is no allegation against the petitioners that they were carrying on trade or commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products. [n view of the same, th€ 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 statutory waming. Thus, registering the crimes for the said offence against the petitioners is not only contrary to Section - 20 (2) oICOTP Act, but also contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera. In view ofthe same, the offence under Section - 20 (2) of COTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree with the 32 KL.J Crl.P i'o l5) oI2010 & batch principle laid down by the learned Single Judges ofthe High Court of Andka Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raoll.

34. For the loregoing discussion and the authoritative principle of [aw, Criminal Petition Nos. 3768,3879, 4046, 4077,4098,4099, 4100, 4102, 4r4r, 4t5t , 4ts7 , 4182, 4187 , 4247 , 4249, 4251, 4258, 4262, 4277, 440s. 4415, 4s42, 461 s, 4640, 4681, 4727, 477 5 arfi, 4825 of 2021 arc allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners therein in the respective crimes mentioned therein. Since the proceedings in the aforesaid Criminat Petitions are quashed against the respective petitioners, the respective Station House Officers / 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. l5Z, 153, lS5,162 & 5826 of 2020,3498, 3500, 3509, 3514, 4070, 4tt}, 4119, 4140, 4t78, 4194, 4216, 4230, 4361, 4612, 4622 and 4632 of 202I are also allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners therein in the respective Calendar Cases mentioned therein. Since the proceedings are quashed, the respective petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate applications before the concemed Magistrate for retum of the seized property / vehicle and the Magistrate sha[[ consider the same in accordance with law. ( 33 KL.J Ctl.P No 152 oI)020 & tutch As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed. osrH JULY, 2021 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. (B/O.) Mgr K. LAKSHMAN, J