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 proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.land 2 in Crime No.39 of 2024 of PS Allapally, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered fbr the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 27 5 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023.

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

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the matter is squarely coyered by the order, dated 05.07.2021 in Crl.P.No. l52 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 Is,l Crl.P.No.16114 ot 2024

5. In view of the said representation and as the matter is squarely covered by the order in the above Criminal Petition, this Criminal Petition is allowed 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.39 of 2024 of PS Allapally, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, are hereby quashed. Furlher, the Investigating Officer is hereby directed to return the seized propertl' on proper identification and verification under due acknowledgement. Pending rriscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD EGISTRAR ASSISTANT S N OFFICER To,

1. The Station House Officer, Allapally Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem Diskict.

2. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) . One CC to SRl. BALA MURALI Y, Advocate IOPUC] . Two CD Copies h 3 4 DUg s t\ HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.'l 6'1 1 4 ol 2024 IASet\1 I4: --Jo O i JAN ?O?5 \1", \e o/\f c z a {: ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 0GP' @ %-.= -n\t\'P o TN THE IIIGH COURT FOR TtIE STAI'E O['TELANGANA AT: IIYDERABAD CORAM: * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN + CRIMINAL PET I'IION No.l52 OF 202 & Ba tch 0 7o Delivered on: 05-07-2021 Bctrveen in Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020

# Mr. Mohd. Jameel Ahmed Petit ioner $ The State ofTelangana, rep.by Public Prosecuror High Court ofTelangana, Hyderabad & another Respondents Mr', M-A.K. Mukheed Mr. 6ajanand Chakravarthy Mr. K. Surender Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Ms. P. Radhika Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti Ms. C. Sunitha Kumari Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar Mr. S.M. Subhan Ms. N. Anhi Mr. Y. Bala Murali Mr. []oggula Raju Mr. S. Chandrasekhar Mr. V. Yadukrishna Sainath Respective learned counsel Learned Public Prosecutor ! For respective Petitioners ^ For Respondents < Gist > Head Note ? Cases Referred r.20r8AIR(sc)5348 2.2016Cri.L.!.240t l. 2019 SCC Online Bom 1857 4. Crl.P. No.373l of20l8 & barch decided on 27 08 20l8 5 2020 (l) ALT (Crl.) 215 (APHC) 6. r995 (t) SCJ 277 7. 201 I (2) Crimes 250 8 2017 SCC Online Cal 16323 9.2002crtL).2812 10. 1992 Supp (l) SCC i35 It. 2020Supreme(AP) j48 12. Cnminal Petilioo No.sl2l of2009, decided or l7 09 2009 13. Criminal Petition No.15248 of20l6, decided o'r 26.10 20 t6 I 2 KLJ Crl.P No t5) oJ2020 & batch HON'BLE SRI .'TJSTICIi K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PEl ll ION Nos I 52. s3 r55, 162 & 5826 0F 2020 AND.1498. 3s00. 3509. .1514. J76a.3819. 4 0 16. 101 0, i1077, ,1098. .1099, 4100. .l102. 4l 10. 4t 19. 4140, 414r. 1t51. 4t57, 4178. 4182. 4187, 4194. 4216. 4230, 4247, 4249. .t25t 12 i,i 1261 4271 4361 110 1415- .r5.t2 7612 .46 {fr.l0 l 611 162 l68l 4721 ,1775 & 4825 0F 202 t c()t\{M 0N ORI)ER: 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. olfences alleged, nature of offences etc., are mentioned in the lbllowing tabular lbrm: No 0t Crl P No. __ l_ Crime No i168/2t 21720 of PS Manoharabad 332l. of PS Kadam 78/21 of PS (T) Adilabad 2l/21 of PS Easgoan _ 185/21 of PS (T) Nirmal No 16121 of PS Koutala No.l8/21 of PS Easgoan I 02 0l 3x1')t2t 4046t21 0l 05 | * 4071/? l I | 00,,,, 07 4t00/21 l Accused Number accus€d accused At &7 accus€d Al tol accuscd accuJed

1.rN 09 l0 t2 4 t021ll I 455/21 of PS Kukatpally accused I 4l4l12l .1t5 t/2 t 45121 of PS Chiragpally 198/21 of PS Chouluppal l,rrsz:r 4tEZt2t 1187 /2t 134/21 of PS Chnyal (M.C) '14/21 ofPS Raghunadhpalem 20221 or PS (T) Mancherial -r- Al tol accused Al to4 At & 2 accused Offences allcgedly commtted 272, 2',13 tPC & 20 (2) w 7(2) or COTPA 270 &273 tPC do- 'do-

270. 273 tPC & 20 (2) ofCO'rPA 2?0 & 27) tPC 210 & 273 tPC 336, 271 & r88 IPC & 59 (i) of FSSA 270 & 2't3 tPC & 20(2\ tt\! -t(2) of COTPA 2'71 & 273 tPC & 20 (2) of COTPA 2t2. 273 & J28 IPC&20(r)&7 (3) otCOTPA 270&273 tPC -do Nalure ofollence 'f ransponarion rlf ,\mb.r tobacc( Salc ol banned tobacco Sale ofgulka,/lobacco Porsession o{ eulka /tohacco in pan shop lransportatl";l Possession oftobacco products in lhe housc Possession ofbanned gurka & olher tobacco irems in pan Jhop Transpo(ation and salc ofprohibited tobacco products Transportalion of tobacco producB SloraBe oflobacco producrs lbr sale I I Purahase and sale of prohibited tobacco producls Transponation of barrned lobacco/gutka Possession ofbanned lobacco Drollcts _ n I l,r l: I6 t7 IlJ t9 KL.J C|l P No 152 o/ 2020 & botch 4)41/21 6li 2l of PS II 4249/2t 4251t2t 12i lt,,l I 1262/2t l0l/21 of PS I To$n Adilabad 90/21 of PS I Town Adilabad 9ll21 of -PS I Town Adilabad I loTnr of PS r I Toun Adilabad t62t2l of PS AMullapurmct 202121 of PS I Tol{n Nalgonda 212121 of PS Il (T) Nalgonda I I 20 2l 4405t21 22 4542/2t 87/21 of PS lll (T) Kothaguden At & 2 24 25 46t5/21 225121 of PS Nirmal Town 4610t2t 8920 of PS Mamada 186/21 ol l,S Pcddavoora 468t /2t

26. 164/21 of PS Adibada :\l A2 A2 21 4175/2t 18 4825/2t 2i4l21 of PS I (T) Naleonda 245/21 of I,S Khammam (R) AIlo4 Al& 2 -do- -do- -do, /\l &2 accused :ole accused Ar&2 I n I toi tEE_ 272, 27i & J28IPC Ai & 2 270 & r7i IPC

188. 2-72 & 273 IPC -do' I88, 269. 270. 213 r/w 34 IPC & lofEDA&il (b) ofDMA 'do- r/!v 14 IPC i28 rhv il l, 272 & 273 tPC 270, 272 & 2'73 IPC & 20 (2) of COTPA i28,2't2, 273 & I88 IPC 328, 270 & Z't\ r/w 5l I IPC & 20 (2) ofCoTPA Possessron ofbanncd Sale ofgu*a and tobacco products Ahout to transpo( noxrous gutka and tobacco producls Sale ofbanned gutka and tobacco products Traniponarion ofgutka and tobacco producN Sale of banned tobacco (tambal:rr) products in lon)' 'lituispo(ation of gutka./tobacco products Possessaon ofbanned gutka lobacco producls Possession oftobacco producG in kirana shop I Possession of prohibited lobacco products for sale liansportarion of baancd lobacco/gulka pockets Posscssion ofbinrcd gutka & tobacco produc6 in kirana shop Transporlation of cigarette or other tobacco products widlout valid license Sale ofgu*a & khaini 'l ransponalron of banncd 29 30 t 53t20 32 l4 i5 i 55/20 i500/2 r i5l5/19 of I-AJA,,$C, Warangal 2124/19 of xvl ACMM. Hvd. 15l8/19 of I.A.IMFC, Warangal 4737/18 ol XI AMM, Sec bad -Specia! Magislrate of ll Class, Jagtial 216/20 ot JFCM, Devarkonda 961t19 of JFCM, Mir-.ralguda CALENDAR CASES A2 A2 A] ,,\] 2',70, 273 & r88. 420 IPC & 58 ofrSSA 212 & 273 IPC & 59 of FSSA.2006 420. 270 & 27i IPC & 58 ofFSSA 212, 273, )]6 & 420 tPC & 20 (21 of COTPA Transponation of banned zarda prducts Sale ofzarda illcgally Transportalion of banned zarda Sale ofprohibired gurka and chel.ing tobacco products Al & 2 t88, 270 & 2't3 tPC Transportation of Amb€r gurka pockels Al&2 n lIo4 420 & 273 IPC 420 & 273 rPC & 20 (ii) of corPA lool I Sale ofbann€d lobacco and gutka products Transponalion ol tobacco and l KL.J Crt-P. No t52 ol 2o2o & botch tEE, 2?0 & 213 tPC, 20 (2)of COTPA, iofEDA& 5l (b) of DMA t88, 270. 273 & 420 IPC & 20 (2) of COTPA 212 & 213 rPC & 20 (2) v,t 1 (2) ol COTPA 2'70 & 213 tPC & 20 (2) w1(2)of COTPA 270,21t,2-12 & 2'13 rlw 34 IPC Sec.3 ofEDA 272 & 2t3 IPC & Sec.20 (l),20 (2) of COTPA I 2'70 & 2'13 rPC & 20 (2) ofCOPTA t88, 2't2 & 273 tPC & 20 (2)&5of COTPA 270 & 213 rPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA Storage ofbanned gulka and olher tobacco producls illegally lbr sale suppty ofgurka and other rouac.o I products Transponation of Amb€r tobacco I I Transporbtion ofpan masala and banncd Bulka 'Iransporbtion ofcotlon seeds and bamed gutka Tmnsponalion of b&ned lobacco and gulka Purchase and sale ofbanned gutka Sale oftobacco products in his shop and disobeying the rules imposed by Covt. in Nor.No.505/FSS- l /21d|.6. l.2l Transportation ol_ Amber gudia At &2 A, to5 At&2 accused acc!sed Al&2 At &2 -do Trafl sponalion of Sulka/pan masala At &2 270 &27) tPC Possession of lobacco producls illegally for sale Sole Al & 2 A] -do -do- Purchase and sale ofprohibited guka pockets Possession oIgutka packets at bus stand for sale illegally -do- w34 rPC & 20 (2) of COTPA Transpo(ation of banned tobacco products 452/10 of XXV MMC, t6 li09/21 i7 t5t4i2 t 632/19 of xxv MMc Al & 2 T- Al ro8 I I I l8 l9 4070/2t 4tl0/2t 10 4l t9/2 r JI 4140/? I 4l 1i J.l 4i 4l18t2t ,1191/2t t2t6/2t 4230/2t

46. rlnl/l I ] 11 I 16t2Dt J8 .19 )6)2/11 54-ll2l ol' PJMFC, GaJwel -i09/20 of Spl.PCR Mob,le Coun-cum- JMFC, Adilabad 512120 of Spl PCR Mobtle Coun-cum- JMFC, lnd,talaa SIC No 20/21 of IV AMM- cum-lV AJC.I, L.B. Nagar El0/21 of IAJMFC, Khamnram 616712l of xvll ACMM, Nanrpally 1298/21 of PJMFC, Khammam E29/21 of PJtvtFC. Khammam r0&21 A.IMTC, Asifabad 5ll/20 of AJMFC, Nimral 61At9 of AJMFC, Nirmal 413120 of A,IMFC. Nirmal

2. Ileard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, Mr. Gajanand Chakravanhy, Mr. K. Surender. Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Ms. P. Radhika, 'o 5 KL.J Ctl P )io.l 5 2 oI 20 20 & botch Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti, Ms. C- Sunitha Kumari, Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Mr. S.M. Subhan, Ms. N. Anhi, Mr. Y. Bala Murali, Mr. Boggula Raju, Mr. S. Chandrasekhar, Mr. V. Yadukrishna Sainath, Iearned counsel appearing on Lrehalf of respective peritioners and.leamed Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondents - State.

3. The question involvcd in all the above matters is onc and the same and, therefore, the same are disposed of by 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 v2., tobacco / tambaku I gutka / khaini / zarda / pan masala respectively. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections - 188, 270, 269,771, 272,273, 328, 336 & 420 read with 34 and 5l I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC'); 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 sho('COTP Act'); Sections - 58 and 59 of the- Food Safety and Standards Act,2006 (for short'FSS Act'); Section - 3 ofthe 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-I C.l.P. No.l52 ol 2o2o & botch

5. 1'he respective learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the above criminal petitions would submit rhat the contents of complaint / charge sheer lacks the ingredients of rhe offences alleged against the accused. For the offences under lhe 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 oflPC. 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 lnvestigating Olficers / 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 offencd under Section - 188 ol IPC and laid charge sheet against the accused. Necessary ingredients to arrract 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- ,a 7 KI..J Crt-? Yo t5t of 2020 & botch

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor relerring to the principle laid down in the State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan' by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao v. The State of Maharashtra: and Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia v. The Statc of Maharashtrar by the Bombay [{igh Court would submit that police are having power ro 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 againsr respecrive accused in the aforesaid crimes / calendar cases. According to him, the accused were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned products urz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka 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 cannor be considered at this stage. i) With the above said submissions, learned 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 Acr, ED Act and DM Act, which are as under: '. 20rE AIR (sc) 5l4s '!2ot6cri.tl.2qot ' 2019 SCC Online Bom t857 8 XL,J Crt P. No 152 of2020 & bat.h REI-EV.\NT I'ROVISIONS UNDER IPC "18E. Disotledience to order duly promulgated by public servant. -Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, hc is dirccted to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain ordcr with cenain property in his possession or under his managemcnt, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or lends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury. or rrsk ofobsrruction. annoyance or injury, to any p€rson lawfully employed. be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may cxtend to one month or with fine which may extend (o trvo hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety'. or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punishcd rvith imprisonment of either description for a term which mav extend to six months, or with fine which may extend lo one tholrsand rupees. or with both. Explanation.-lt is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as Iikely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows ofthe order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm- llluslration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully cmpowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street- A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes dangerofriot. A has commined the offence defined in this section." "269. Negtigent act Iikely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.-Whoever unlawfi-rlly or negligently does any act which is, and rvhich he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a tenn u'hich may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." "270. Malignant act likel), to spread infection of disease dangerous to lifc. Whoever malignantly does any act which ,a 9 KI- J C.t P No t5) of 2Do & ba,ch is. and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infeclion of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may exrend to two years, or with fine, or with both." ''271. Disobedience to quarantine rule.-Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Government for putting any vessel into a state ofquarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or rvith other vessels, or for regulating the intercourse betw€en placcs 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 drink intended for sale.- Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such articlc as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both," "27.1. Sale of noxious food or drink.-Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or &ink, 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 nox- ious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of eithcr description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which nray extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." "328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commii an offence.-Whoever administers to or caus€s to be taken by any person any poison or any stupelilg, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hun 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 hun, shall be punished with imprisonment of t0 KL.J Crt.P- t\o-152 oI2020 & botch either description for a tcmr lvhich may cxtend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." "336- Act endangering life or perso[rl safety of others.- Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human lile or thc personal safcry of othcrs, shall be punished with imprisonmcnt of eithcr description for a term which may extend to three months, or rvith fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees. or rvith both." "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever chcats and thereby dishonestly induces to any person, or to the person deceivcd to deliver any prop€rty make, alter or destroy the whole or aoy part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable ol being convened into a valuable security, shall be punished rvith imprisonnrent of eithcr description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." "34- Acts done b1 several persons in furtherance of common intention. Whcn a criminal acr is done by several persons in lunherancc of the conrmon intention ofall. each ofsuch p€rsons is liable for thal act in lhc same manner as if it were done by him alone.'' "51l- Punishment for attempling to commit offences punishable rvith imprisonment for life or other im prisonment.-whoever anempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment. or to cause such an offence to be commined, and in such anempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, rvhere no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment ol- such attempt, be punished with imprisonment ol any description provided for the offence, for a term which ma1, extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case nlay be, one-half ofthe longest term of imprison- ment provided for lhat offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence. or rvith both." ,o 1t KL'J Crl P No.l5) of2020 1< botch RELEVANT PROVISIONS TINDER COTP ACT "5- Prohibition of advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products. {l) No penon engaged in, or purponed to be engaged in the production, supply or distribution ofcigarettes or any other tobacco products shall advertise and no person having control ovcr a medium shall cause to be advertised cigarettes or any other tobacco products through that medium and no person shall take part in any advertisement which directly or indirectiy suggests or promotes the use or consumption ofcigarettes or any olher tobacco products. (2) No person, tbr any direct or indirect pecuniary benefit, (a) display, cause to display, or permit or authorise to display any advenisement ofcigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (b) sell or cause to sell. or permit or authorise to sell a film or video tape containing advenisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (c) distribute, cause to 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 advertiscnrent ofcigarettes or any other tobacco product: Provided lhat lhis sub-section shall not apply in relation (a) an advcnisement of cigarcttes or any other tobacco product in or on a package containing cigarettes or any other tobacco product; (b) advenisement of cigarettcs or any other tobacco product which is dispiayed at the entrance or insidc a warehouse or a shop where cigarenes and any other tobacco products are offered for distribution or sale. (3) No person, shall, under a contmct or otherwise promote or agree to promote the use or consumption of (a) cigarcttes or any other tobacco product; or (b) any trade mark or brand name of cigarenes or any other lobacco producl in exchange lor a sponsorship, gift, prize or scholarship given or agreed to be given by another person." "20. Punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents.- (l)Any person who produces or manufactures cigarettes or tobacco products. which do not contain, eithcr on the package or C rt. P .vo. t 5 2 oI 2020 & borch on their label, the specificd warning and the nicotinc and tar contents, shall in the case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may cxtend to two years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both, and for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five ycars and with fine which may extend 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 contents shall in the case of firsr conviction be punishable wirh imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees-" "7- Restrictions on trade and commerce irl, and production, supply and distribution of cigarettcs and other tobacco products.- (l) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, supply or distribute 6 cigarertes or any other lobacco products unless every package of cigarenes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him bears rhereon, or on its Iabel such specified rvaming including a pictorial waming as may be prescribed. (2) No person shall carry on trade or commerce in cigarenes or any other tobacco products unless every package ofcigareftes or any other tobacco products sold, supplied or distributed by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified warning, (3) No person shall impon cigarettes or any other tobacco producs for distribution or supply for a valuable consideration or for sale in India unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products so imported by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified warning. (4) The specified warning shall appear on nor less rhan ore of the largest panels ol'the package in which cigarettes or any other o KL.J (: P. No-tt2 of2020 & botch tobacco products have been packed for distribution, sale or supply for a valuable consideration. (5) No person shall, directly or indirecrly, produce, supply or distribute cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any orher tobacco products produced, supplied or distribured by him indicates lhereon, or on its label, the nicotine and tar contents on each cigarette or as the case may be on other tobacco products along wirh the maximum permissible limits thereof: Provided that rhe nicorine and tar contents shall not exceed rhe maximuet permissible quantity thereofas may be prescribed by nrles made tinder this Act." RELEVANT PROvISIONS UNDER F.S.S. Act: "58. Penalty for contraventions for which no specific penalty is providcd.-Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided in this Chapter, shall be liable to a penalry which may extend to nvo lakh rupees." "59. Punishmcnt for unsafe food.-Any persop who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption rvhich is unsafe, shall be punishable,- (i) where such failure or contravention does not result in iniury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (ii) where such failure or contravention results in a non-grievous iojury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees: (iii)where such failure or contravention results in a grievous injury, with imprisonment for a rerm which may extend to six years and atso with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees; (iv) where such failure or conrravention results in death, with imprisonment for a term whicfi shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also with fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees." t.1 KL.J Ctl P lo 15) of2020 & batch RELEVANT PRoVISION UNDER E.D. ACT: "3. Penalty. Any person disobeying any regularion or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 )." RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER D.M. ACT: "51- Punishment for obstruction, etc.- ( I) Whoever, without reasonable cause- (l) Whocver, wirhout reasonable cause-" (a) obstructs any officer or employee o[(he Cerltral Covemment or the State Govemment, or a person authorised by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authoriry in the discharge of his functions und€r this Act; or (b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Covemment or the Slate Covenrment or the National Exccutive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishablc with imprisonment for a rerm which may extend ta one year or with fine, or with both, and i[ such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger 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 i8) seeks to lay dorvn what will constitute an offence in terms of obstruction of the functions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of lalse rvaming, failurc of an officer to perform rhe duty imposed on him under the Act without due permission or larvful excuse, or his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide fbr 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 Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana{ had an occasion to deal with the issues involved in the present criminal petirions. After referring to various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and orher High Courts ' Crt.P. No i7l t of20t8 & bxrch, decided on 27 08.20t8 o KLJ Crt.P. No.ts2 ol2D0 & bot.h in several judgments, the learned Single Judge had framed the issues, which are as under: "l) Whether the responden, Sub-lnspector of Police, is comp€tent investigate into thc offence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(l) of FSS Act? 2) Whether the petitioners in all the petitions are found committirg any act with malicious intention, with knowledge and reason to belieye that such act likely to spread the infeclion ofany disease dangerous to life? And whether the petitioners selling or offering or exposing for sale as food or drink, any article which has bcen rendered or-has become noxious or is in a state unfit for food or drink or reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink? If so, are th€y liable to be proceeded for the offence punishable under Sections 2'10 and 273 tPc.?"

9. After an elaborate discussion and on consideration of various aspects, the learned 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) ol FSS Act, as they were not empowered under the said Act to launch the prosecution, but only Food Safety Officer appointed by the Covemment alone is competent to launch prosecution for those two offences. With the said findings, the leamed Single Judge has quashed the proceedings where the offbnc€s are under Sections - 54 and 59 of FSS Act initiated by the police.

10. In the very same judgment. the learned Single Judge'further held that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the'food'within the definition ofSection - 3() olthe FSS Act and the manufacture, sale or t6 KL,J Crt P \o ltt o/2D0 & botch exposing lor 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 Sccrions - 54 and 59 (l) oi 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 - 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 transporlation 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 lPC. 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, rhereby regisrration of crime on the ground of violation of Sections - 7 (l) (2) (3) (5) and Section - 26 of COTP Act is an illegality. The leamed Single Judge further held that registration of cases for the offence under Section - 20 (2) read with 7 (2) of COTP Act is illegal. Withrhesaid findings, the learned Single Judge has quashed the crimes and calendar cases in the said judgment. i.'1 l,-. KL,J Crl-P- No-1i2 of 2020 & botch I l. In Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasadhi Tripati Rao v. The State ofAndhra Pradeshs, a learned Single Judgc olthe High Cou* of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravti had also an occasion to deal with the said issue. After referring to the contentions oflhe respective parties therein, various provisions of lPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and relying on the principle laid down in Anand Ramdhani Chaurasiar, Joseph Kurian v. State of Kerala6, Sa1ryed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr, M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., v. State of U.P.7, Sanjay Anjay Stores v. Union of Indiat, Boop Singh Tyagi v. Statee, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalr0 and Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the learned Singlc Judge has quashed the FIRs / Calendar Cases. The leamed Single Judge ref'erring to the law laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera held that despite the said authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues. The said judgment attained finality. Even thcn, the police are registering cases against accused on the very same allegations lor the very same offences. i) Refening to the provisions of Sections - 153, 188, 269,270, 271, 272, 273, 284, 328, 353 of IPC, the learned Judge in Sri Jaganath Enterprisess held that the oflences registered under the said Sections are not maintainable. tt firrther held that the provisions of the COTP Act can only be pressed into service in the limited 201I (2) Crimes 250 '. 2o2o (l) ALT (crt.) 215 (APHC) ". 1995 (r) scj 277 7. 3. 20t7 scc online cal 16323 " 2oo2 c,t L) 28'i2 ro r992 S'rpp (t ) SCC ll5 l8 KL.J Crt.P- No 152 of 2o2o & botch i' circumstances only rvhere there is violation ofSections 4, 5, 6.7 and I 0 of the COTP Act. By referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lalr0 and M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd.7, the learned Single Judge has quashed the procecdings in various crimes / calendar cases-

12. Another learned Single Judge ofthe High Court ofAndhra 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 principlc laid dorvn in Chidurala Shyamsubder{.

13. ln Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr, the Apex Court while dealing with legality of the order passed by the Bombay High Court in a batch of criminal writ petitions and criminal applications, which were filed challenging the registration of FlRs 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 i 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 Iligh Court for fresh consideration on the issue that whether the afbresaid offences are made out in the FIRs, which are subject matter of the cases pending before the Bombay High Court. r' 2020 Supreme (AP) i48 ) l9 KL.J C.I-P No li: of 2o]0 & bolch

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 viz., tobacco / tambaku / gfika lkhaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. In Chidurala Shyamsubderr, the learned Single observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section - 710 of IPC and that manufacturing ofpan masala is not included in Section - 273 ol IPC and, therefore, the same is not an olfence sincc it is not a noxious food. The leamed Single Judge has tirrther 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 $,ould not spread or infect or cause any disease on account of transportation and if those products are consumed by human being, it would cenainly cause damagc 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 of the FSS Act. Section - 3 (l) 20 KL.J Ctt P No.l52 of 2020 & botch I (a) ol 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 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 ol cascs 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 ot'Section - 27? 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. Nagesrvara Rao'1.

16. In Joseph Kurian6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for Section -272 IPC 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 aduiterated it and the adulteration rendered it noxious as a 'food or drink'; (3) thar 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 ofthe adulterant. 'Adulterant' would mean that a material which is mixed to make the 'food' unsafe or drink unsaf'e. [n thc present case on hand, tobacco is not a food or '1 2l Crl.P No l5t of2ol0 & borch drink and lvhar is srated to be mixed in it is not clearly esrablished by any cogent material as an 'adulterant' for the offence under Section - 272 IPC to bc pressed into service.

17. As far as Section - 328 of IPC is concerned. in the same judgment it was held as follows: ''10. In order to prove offence under Section 32E the prosecution is required to prove that the substance in question was a poison, or any stupe[ing, intoxicating or unwholesome drug etc, that 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 l9 that he would thereby cause hurt, or wirh the inrenrion to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence. It is, therefore, essential for the prosecution to prove that thc accuscd was directly responsible for administering poison etc. or causing it ro be taken by any person, through another......." Tobacco does not fit into this definition. f8. Section - 273 of IPC deals with sale of a noxious lood 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 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 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 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 22 KL,J Crt P. No I t2 ol 2020 & botch IPC or in FSS Act. As per thc dictionary meaning, the word'noxious' is harmful. deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As stated above, the allegation in the cntire batch of present criminal petitions is with regard to transportation. possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products vr.. tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini / zarda I pan masala etc.. respectivel-v. 'l-herefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section - 273 of lPC.

19. As far as section - 188 IPC is concemed, as per the settled law on the subject. before an accused is charged, there must be; an order duly promulgated by the public servant; the public servant must have the lawful authority to promulgate the order; the person flouting the same should have knorvledge 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. In Boop Singh Tyagie a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that riBht 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 thc orders only if the article of'food' can causes danger or is injurioLrs to health. ) 23 Crl P. No 152 of lDq & but.h

20. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by public Prosecutorr2 while dealing rvith the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 oflPC, the learned Single Judge ofthe combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under: "5) Even if the allegation that rhe petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Seclion l0 of the Police Act, 186l could have been given only by the Superintendent or tbe Assistant Superintendent of Police of the Districr 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 mandates thal the complaint in this regard has to be made by lhe public servant concerned or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Cou( to lake cognizance of an offence under Section I 88 of Code of Criminal procedure. In the presenr 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 rhe mandatory provision of Section 195(lXa) ofCode of Criminal procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the pet,tioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged olfence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an '2. Crimin6l Petirion h-o.5i2l of2009, decided on t7.09.2009 I I 24 KL,J Crl.P. No 152 of 2020 & botch I independent ol the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction lo 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 concerned, which can also be covered by Section 281 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak aboul the trafTic jam caused by the road show. But, when lhe conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting rcsulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary gttihy 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 being in violation of Section I 95 ( | ) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. As the complaint has thiled due to its 7) unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the I'r accused'alone approached this Coun by way of this Criminal Petition."

21. ln 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 Raorr and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lalr0 more particularly, guideline No.6. which says that rt. Criminal Petilion No 152.18 of20l6. decrded on 26 l0 2016 ') 2i KL,J Crt P \o.t52 ol:0lo & bat.h where thcre is an exprcss legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions ofthe Code or the concemed Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and conrinuance of the proceedings and,/or where there is a specitic 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 Cr.p.C. lt was also lurther held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect oiobtaining prior permission under Secrion - 155 (2) of Cr.p.C. and taking cognizance on rhe complaint filed by V.R.O. and ir is against the purport ofSecrion - I95 (l) (a) of Cr.p.C.

22. Yide Notification No.50l /FSS- l/2020, dared 06.01.2020, the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana Direcrorate of Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, rcstricted the manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation and sale of gutka / pan masala, which contains tobacco and nicotine. as ingredients and chewing tobacco products, like chap robacco, pure tobacco, khaini, kharra, scented tobacco / fiavoured 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- l/202 I , dated 06.01 .2021, the same was exrended for one more year. As per the inlorrnation fumished and instructions received, several writ petitions were tlled challenging the said 26 KL.J Crl-P :\'o 152 of2020 & botch ( Notifications belore this Court as well as the I{on'ble Supreme Court. A Division Bench of this Court declined to entenain some writ petitions on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court seized ofthe said issue- It is also rclevant to note that the I'[on'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 larv laid down in the above judgments including the judgments in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Rao". 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 10 commit an offence. As per the said provision, whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, 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 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 likelv that he will 1 11 C .P No.1t2 ol 2D0 & bdtch rhereby cause hurt. As stated above, the allegations in the entire batch of criminal petirions 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 - 336 of IpC is concerned, it deals with an act endangering lile or personal safety of others, and as per which, whoever does any act so rashly or ncgligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with impris_ onment of either description lor a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend lo two hundred and frfty rupees, or with both. In the complaints / charge sheets, there is no such allegation of rash and negligent act which endangers human Iife or personal safety of others. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaints I charge sheets lacks the ingredients of Section - 336 of IPC

25. As far as Section _ 420 of IpC is concerned, .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 contents of complaints / charge sheet lack the ingredients of Section _ 420 of IPC.

26. As far as Section _ 269 ol IpC is concerned, it deals rvith negligent act likery ro spread infection of disease dangerous to Iife, and as per which, rvhoever unlawfully or negligently does any act t8 KL'J Ctt.t r'o tt2 oJ202o & batch ( which is, and which he knows or has rcason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection ofany disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonmen( of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. But, a perusal ol 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 prescnt batch ofcases.

27. In view ol the above said discussion, according to this Court, transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase ol tobacco products are not totally banned in the State ol Telangana and also in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sections - 269, 270, 2'71, 272 and )73, 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 Shyamsubdcra, the leamed Single Judge follou,ing the guidelines laid down. by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lalr0 held that the police are incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 ( I ) of the FSS Act, investigating intb the offences along with other offences undel 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 for the offences ,, 29 KL.J Crl P No l:2 of)020 & batch under Sections - I88, 270 and 273 oflpC. Thercfore, in the presenr batch ofcases, enterraining the complaints / filing the charge sheets by the police is contrary to rhe principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubderr- '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 matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. A reading ofthe said objects of the said Act would reveal that a totat 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) ol 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 Acr 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 advertisement.

30. Section - 7 of the COTP Act deals with the imposition of restriction on the sale, trade, commerce of tobacco products untess .10 KL.J Crt-P :,to 152 of2020 & hatch ( every package of cigarefie or tobacco product contains a specified warning (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. 3 l. A reading of this Act, parricularly 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 institution. 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, rhe 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 wrongful profits. ln view of the said allegation, it is apt to refer to Section - 20 (2) of the COTp Act I KL.J Ctl P. t..o t52 of 2o)0 & botch for better appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question, and the same is as under: "20. Punishment for failure to give specified rvarning and nicotine and lar conleols..- (t)... ' (2) Any penon rvho sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain eirher on the package or on their label, the spccified warning and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment lor a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. and, for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with tine which may extend to three thousand rupecs."

33. Thus, Section - 20 oICOTP Act deals rvith 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 lrade or commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products. In view of the same, the contents ofthe complaints / charge sheets lack the ingredients of Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act. Even, there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain labels with statutory warning. 'lhus, 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 KL,J Crt P -\o ti2 o/ 2o2o & botch I principle laid down by the learned Single Judges ofthe tligh Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara RaolI. J4. For the fbregoing discussion and rhe authoritative principle of'law, Criminal Petition Nos. 3768, 3879, 4046, 4077, 4098, 4099, 4100, 4 t02, 4 t 4 t, 4t 5 1. 41 57, 4t 82, 4187, 4247, 4749. 425 t, 4258, 4262, 4277, 4405, 4415, 4s42, 46t 5, 4640, 4681, 4727, 477 5 ancl 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 Officers / lnvestigating Officers are hereby directed to return rhe seized property / vehicles on proper identification and verification of orvnership under due acknowledgment.

35. Further, Criminal Perition Nos. 152, 153, l55, 162 & 5826 of 2020,3498, 3s00, 3509, 3514, 4070, 4110, 4119, 4t4O,4t78, 4194, 4216, 4230, 4361, 4612, 4622 and 4632 of 2021 are atso allowed quashing the proceedings againsr 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 concerned Magistrate for return of the seized propeny / vehicle and the Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law. .1., KI,.J (:tt P .\'o tt2 af 20)a & bolch As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending in all the Criminal Petirions shall srand closed. OsTH JULY, 202I !p19: L.R. copy to be marked. (B/O.) Mgr K. LAKSHMAN, J