Memoranduni of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr v. Ravi Kumar Reddy

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.l and 2 in FIR No.l23 of 2020 on the file of Mulkanoor [)olice Station, Warangal District against the petitioners registcred tbr the offences punishable under Sections 2-/0, 213, 328 read with 109 andl5 of IPC

2. Heard Mr.V.Ravi Kurnar Reddy, learned counsel lor the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional \ Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter IS squarely cove red by the order, dated 05.01 .2021 ir Crl.P.No.l52 of 2020 and batch.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutol also submitted that the issue in the present Criminal Petition is covercd by the earlicr order in the above Criminal Petition. 2 JS, ] Crl.P.No.16279 of 2024

5. In vicrv ol' the said represeutation and as the matter is squarely covcrcd b1, rhe order in the above crininal petition, this crinrinal Pcrition is alowed in terms or the above said order, adopting thc reasoning contained therein. .lhe proceedings against thc peritioncrsiaccused Nos. I and 2 in cr.No. r23 of 2020 on the file o1- on the file of Mulkanoor police Station, Warangal District are hcrebl quashed. Further, the Station Llouse officer'/ln'estigari.g office. is hereby directed to return the seized p'operr\ o. proper idcntification and verification under due acknowle<lqcntcnt. Perrding rnisccllaneous applications, if anv shall stand closed To //TRUE COPYII Sd/- T. TIRUMALA D VI R ASSISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Husnabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Mulkanoor Police Station, Warangal Urban District. 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri V Ravi Kumar Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI 5 Two CD Copies (Annexed a Copy of the order dated 05-07-2021 in Crl.p No. 152 of 2O2O and batch) d.k kanr/gh '\ HIGH COURT DATED:0910112025 ORDER CRLP.No.16279 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETIT!ON t'5'u' ( * 1tiE ST4 -G' 11 [An ?825 ,. Lt r\ t i,) ---:-.i' IN TITE HIGH COURT T'OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: IIYDERABAD * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICf, K. LAKSEMAN CORAM: + CRIMINAI, PE'IITION No.152 OF 2020 & Batch 7o Delivered on: 05-07-2021 Between in Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 # Mr. Mohd. Jamecl Ahmed Vs. Petitioner $ The State oI Telangana, rep.by Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad & another Respondents Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed Mr. Gajanand 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. Boggula Raju Mr. S- Chandrasekhar Mr. V. Yadukrishna Sainath Respective leamed counsel Leamed Public Prosecutor ! For respective Petitioners ^ For Respondents < Gist > Head Note ? Cases Referred t. 20r E AIR (sc) 53{E 2. 2016 Cri. L J.2401 I 2019 SCC OnLtne Born 1857 4. Crl-P. No.l7l I of20lE & barch, decrded on 27.08.201E 5. 2020 ( I ) ALT (Crl.) 215 (APHC) 6. t995 ( r) SCJ 277 7. 201 I (2) Crimes 250 t 2017 SCC OnlincCal l612l 9.2002Ctl.Ll.2E12 10. 1992 Supp ( I) SCC ll5 I l. 2020 Supreme (AP) llE 12. Criminal Petrtion No.5l23 of2009, decided on 17.09.2009 ll. Cnminal Petition No.1524E of20l6, decided on 26.10.2016 2 KL,.J Crl P. No 152 of 2020 & lntch HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN 155 , 15 2& 260 2020 D q8 RIM AL PE ITIO Nos.l 3500 .3509.3514 .376E 1R7q . 4046. 4070.4071 .4098 . 4099.4100.41 02, 4110, 4230 4247 4249 1t5'7 4t1E 4tE2 4lE7 4 t94 42 4119 4 r40 1 4l 4l ,13 6l 4405 4415 4542 4612 46 4681 4721 4775 & 1E 25 C)l' 202 t 4251 425E 4262 42 4622 4632 0 I COMMO N ORDER All the above Criminal Pctitions are filed to quash thc proceedillgs against the petitioners - accused in rcspective Crimes / Calendar Cases. The detaits of rclcvant Crimes / Calendar Cases, offences alleged, nature ol oflenccs etc ' are mentioned in thc foltowing tabular tbtm: sl. No 0l 02 0l 04 05 06 01 08 09 Crl.P No. f76812l 3879t2t l 40462 40'7 7 t2l 409E/21 4099121 4t02/2\ 4t4t/21 l0 4t5t/2I 4t57,',21

12. 4 t82t2l 4l87i2l Crinre No 217120 ot PS Manohambad 13t21 of PS Kadam 78/21 of PS (1) Ad,labad 2ll2l of PS Ea 185/21 of PS (1) Nirmal No 36/21 oi PS Koutala No 3E,/21 ol PS Easgoan 455/21 oi PS Kukarpally 45121 of PS Chiragpalll 198/21 ol PS ChoutuppaL I l4,i2l ol PS Chiryal (NLC) 74,/21 of PS Ra hunad 202121 of Ps (.I l Mancherial Numbcr sol€ Al & l r\l (,1 At ro l OIlenc es allcgedly conrmillsd 27l.2ll IPC & 20 (2) r/w 7(2) of coTP..\ 270 & l7.l IPC Narure ofoffe te 'kdnsportation of \mber tobacco Sale of banned to:acco

210. r7l IPC & 20 (l)of('OTPA z:o * l:l rpc- 270 & 271 IPC t l6, l7l & l8E lP(' & 5() (r) of FSSA 270 & 2'lf IPC & 2Ol1) rlw 1(2) ot COTPA 272 & l7l IPC & l0 (2)ofCOTPA 212. 113 & l2E IPC & 20 (l) & 7 (l) ofCOTPA Sale ofgurkrtobacco ,l!egqt!y-t!-eqd, Possession ofgrrtka 4obacco in Pao lhoP Transportation ol prol!!{d..p!Eq Possession oftobacco Products in lhe house Possession ofbarmcd gu*a & other tobacco Transponation and sale ofprohibited tobacco producls Transponation cI robacco products Srorage oftobacco roducts for saie Purchase and sal: of prohibited tobacco blnned -Transponationof tobacco/gutka Possession ofbaoned robacco products Al & 2 270&l7l IPC 1 KL.J C P No 152 of 2020 & batch do- t4 l5 l6 t7 t8 4241t21 4249t21 425E/2t .19. 4277/2t 20 2t 4405t21 44t5/21 22 4542/2t 23 24 4615/2t 4640t21 25 6l121 of PS II Iown Adilabad l0l,2l of PS I Town Adilabad 90/21 of PS I Town Adilabad 9ll21 of PS I Town Adilabad 107/21 of PS I Town Adilabad 162/21 of PS Abdullapurmet 202121-of PS I Town Nal,londa 212121 of PS II (T) Nalsonda 87/21 of PS lll (T) Kothagudem 225/2t of PS Nimul Town t9/20 of Mamada 186/21 of PS Peddavoora PS 26 4721/2t 164/21 of PS Adibatla Al&2 accused At & 2 Alto3 accused Al &l At&2 AI 2 A2 2'1 4775/2t 28 4t25/21 214121 of PS I Nal 245121 of PS Khammam R Al lo ,l Al & 2 Possessron of banned gutka products Sale ofgutka ard tobacco producrj Abour to transpon noxious gutka and tobacco products Sale ofbanned Butka and tobacco products TraDsporlation of gutka and tobacco products Sale of banned tobacco (tambaku) poducrs in Transportation of gutka,/tobacco Droducts Possession of banned gutka /tobacco products Possession oftobacco products in kirana shop Possession of prohibited tobacco products for sale Transporlation of bained tobacco/gutka pockets Possession of bamed gutka & tobacco products in ktrana shop Transportation of cigarette or other tobacco products wilhout valid license Sale of gutka & kharni Trarsponation of banned -do -do

188. 272, 27f & ]28IPC 188, 272 & 213 tPC 188,269,270, 2'71 rl'rv 34 IPC & lofEDA&51 (b) of DMA 2'10 & 273 tPC do r/w 34 IPC 328 rlw 511,212 & 27] IPC 270, 212 & 273 IPC & 20 (2) of COTPA 328, 272, 2',13 & I88IPC 328. 2'70 & 273 r/w 5l I IPC & 20 2 OfCOTPA 29 t52/20 30 ]I 32 14 l5 153t20 t62/20 s826n0 349A/2t 1500/zt l5l5/t 9 I.AIMFC "l 2724/19 of XVII ACII\I. Hvd l5l8/19 of I AJMIC, 4'737/lt of XI AMM, Sec bad Special Magistrate of II Class. Jagtral 216/20 of JFCM, Devarkonda 961/19 of JFCM, Miryalguda CALENDAR CASES 1 A2 A] A2 210, 213 & 188, 420 tPC & 58 ofFSSA 272 & 2t3 IPC & 59 of FSSA,2006 420. 270 & 271 tPC & 58 ofFssA 211,271, 336 & 420 IPC & 20 (2) of COTPA Tmnsponation of barured z-arda producrs Sale of zarda illegally Transportatron of banned zarda Sale ofprohibited gutka and chewing tobacco products At&2 t88. 270 & 27] IPC Transporlation of Amber gutka pockets At&2 120 & 21f IPC 420 & 211 rPC & 20 (i0 of corPA.2ool Sale of bamed tobacco and gurka products Transportation of tobacco and gu&a products 4 Crl t' \o 152 of 202 t ti: balch I E8, 270 & 271 rPC, 20 (2)of COTPA, lofEDA& 5l (b) of DMA I88, 270. 271 & 420 tPC & 20 (2) or COTPA 272 & 273 rPC & 20 (2) rl* 1 (21 ot COTPA 2'70 & )71 rPC & 20 (2) r/w 7 (2) of COTPA Storage ofbanned gul(a and other tobacco products illegally for sale Supply ofgutka and othcr tobacco Products Transponatlon of AmheI tobacco Transponatron of pan,nasala and banned gutka L_1 Al&2 Al ro5 Al to{ 270,271,172 & 271 ri*' 34 IPC Sec.3 ofEDA Al&l T AI&2 272 &- 211 IPC & Sec.20 (1). 20 (2) of COTPA 210 & 211 rPC & 20 (2) ofCOPTA r 88, 272 & 211 tPC & 20 (l)&soa COTPA 210 & 213 IPC & 20 (l) of COTPA I ransponation ofcoltoll s3eds and banned Sutka Transportauon of barm.d tobacco and gutka . Purchase and sale ofbarned gutka Salc of(obacco produ(ts in hls shop afld drsobcying l:re rulcs inrposcd by Covt irl Not No 505'FSS l/21.(h.ri t 2l Trarsportatron of Amb.r gutka At & 2 -do' Transponation of 8!tka,pan masala Al&2 270 &27.] IPC Possessron o[()bacco P.oducls rllegally for sale Solc accused At & I 'do A] I -do- rhv 1,1 PC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA Purchase and sale ofpK,htbtlcd guka pockets Possessionofgutka packets at bus srand [or sale lllegall] 'l mnspoflalion ofbanned lo Products l6 452'tr) of XXV MMC. Ibrahrmpatan & l1 l5 t4/2 r 631 le o[ XX\ ttl iMa . Alto8 l8 39 4t t0/2 t 40 4t t9t2t 4t {t10i2t 12 43 41 1t'/8t2t 4t91/21 42t6t2l 45 4230121 46 47 1t '1161/2 r 4621t21 49 541t]! ol' PJMI.C, Gajwel 509/20 o[ Spl.PCR Mob rle Coun cunl- JMFC. Adilabad 5t2/20 ot Spl.PCR Mobile Coun cum' JMFC, Adrlabad STC No.20,21 of IV AMM. AJCJ. L,B N9E"r tl l0i2 t of I A JNIF(], Kharflmam 6167,1I ot xv AallIl, Nampally l29E,l I ol PJMFC. Khanrmam 929n1 ol PJMFC, KhamrDam 108/21 of AJMF(" Asifabad 5f3/20 of Nirmal 622119 of i\JMFC, N irmal 4 t1t20 AJMF'', N irmal l l 46t2t2t AJMF( ,

2. Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthy' Mr. K. Surender. Mr. Pravcen Kumar Veerjala, Ms P Radhika' ) KLJ Cn l'. No.l 52 of2020 & bdt.h Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti, Ms. C Sunitha Kuman, Mr' Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Mr. S.M. Subhan, Ms. N. Arthi, Mr. Y. Bala Murali, Mr. Boggula Raju, Mr. S. Chandrasckhar, Mr. V. Yadukrishna Sainath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor appcaring on behall of respondents - State.

3. The question involved in all the abovc mafters is one and the same and, therefore, the same are disposcd ol by way o[ this common order.

4. The main allegations against the pctitioners - accused are that they were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini / zarda / pan masala respectively. The offenccs alleged against the petitioners are under Sections - t88, 270, 269,771,272'2'73,328, 336 & 420 read with 34 and 5ll o[the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short'IPC'); Sections - 20 (t), 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, Suppty and Distribution) Act, 2003 (tor short 'COTP Act'); Sections - 58 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act,2006 (for short'FSS Act'); Section - 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (for short 'ED Act') and Section - 5l (b) ot the Disaster Management Act,2005 (for short DS Act) respectivelY. 6 Crl P \a 152 of2tt)t) & bdtch

5. 1'hc rcspectivc lcamed counsel appearing on behall'of the petitioners in thc aboYc criminaI petitions would submit that the contents of complaint r charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the olfences allcged against the accused. For the otfences under the provisions ol'FSS Act, only Food Safety Officer is having powel to initiate criminal proccedings against accused and the police arc not having any power to r-egistcr a case for the oflences under the provisions oIFSS Act. Thcre is no inducement by the petitioners and, thereforc, oflence undcr Section - 420 of IPC does not arise. According to lhcm. lhe contcnts of complaint / charge shcet arc also Iacking the ingredicnts of the olfences under Sections -269,270.271, 212,213,328 and 336 of iPC. i) According to them. there is no violation of Sections - 2{) ( I ), 20 (2) and 5 rcad with 7 (2) ard 7 (3) of the COTP Act. The Investigating Olflccrs / Conrplainants without following the procedurc Iaid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), have registeled the cases for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC and laid charge sheet against the accuscd. Necess:rry ingredients to attract the provisions of Section - 3 oIthe ED Act and Section - .5 t (b) of thc DM Act are lacking in the complaint / charge sheet. ii) With the irbove said submissions, the respective learned counsel sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crimes ,/ calendar cases- ,7 KI''J Ctl P \o Ii2 of20)0 & botch

6. On the other hand, leamed Public Prosecutor refering to the principle laid down in the State of Maharashtra v. Salyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court and in Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao v. The State of Maharashtra2 and Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia v. The State of Maharashtrar by thc Bombay High Court would submit that police are having power to register cases under various provisions of IPC, COTP Act, ED Act and DM Act. There is no irregularity in registering crimes. seizing material including the vehicles and laying charge shcet against respective accused in the aforesaid crimes / calendar cascs. According to him, the accused were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned products yrz., tobacco / tambaku I gutka I khaini I zarda / pan masala respectively. According to tri-, tt " 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. r.vhich 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: '. 2ol8 ArR (sc) il48 I 2016 cri L.J.24ot r. 2ol9 scc ooline Bom 1857 E KL.] Crl ?. No 15) of2020 & batch RELEVANT I'RO\'ISIO NS TJNDER IPC "18E. Disobedicnce lo or(ler duly promulgated by public servant. Whocver, knorving that, by an order promulgated by a public senant larvfully enpowcred to promulgate such order, he is directed 1(] abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order *,ith ccrtain propenl in his possession or under his manaeenerlt. tlisobcvs such direction, shall, if such drsobedrence causcs or tends to cause obstruction, amoyance or injury. ,,r rrsk ol ,.bitructlon. annoyance or injury. to any person la*'fi-rll; emplol ed, be punished with sitnple imprisonment for a tcmr which may exrend to onc month or with fine which may extend to tu'o hundred mpees, or with both; and if such disobcdience causes or trends lo cause danger to human life, hcalth or salety, or causes or lends to cause a riot or affray, shall bc punished with tmprisonment of either description for a term \r,hich may extcDd to six months, or with fine which may extend to orle thousand rupees, or rvith both. Explanation. It is not neccssary that the offender should intend to produce ha.m, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to producc hitrm lt is sufficient that he knows ofthe order which he disob.)!, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to producc. hann. Illustratio[ An order is promulgatcd by a public servant larvfirlly empou'crcd to prornulgate such order, directing that a religrous procession shall not pass down a certain. street. A knou ingly disobeys the ordcr, and thereby causes danger of riot A has commrtted thc oficncc defined in thrs section." "269. Negligent act tikely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act \!hich is, and which he kno{'s or has reasoD to believe lo be, likely to spread tlte inlection of any disease dangerous to life. shall be punishe(l with imprisonment of either description for a term which may cxtend to srx months, or with fine, or with both." "270. Iwatignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to lifc \\hoever nlilligrantly does any act which 9 KI,,J Crl.P No liz o[ )0)0 & bdtch is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to bc, hkely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." "271. Disobedience to quaraItine rule.-Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Governmetrt for putting any vessel into a state ofquarantine, or for regulating thc intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessels, or for regulating the intetcourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and othcr placcs, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with finc, 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 noxrous as food or drink, intending to soll such anicle as food or drink, or knowing it to be tikely that thc same will be sotd 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 botl." "273. Sale ofnoxious food or drink. Whoever sells. or offcrs or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has becn rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for lood or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same rs nox- ious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonmcnt of either description for a term which may extend to six monlhs, or with hne which may extend to on€ thousand rupees, or with both." "328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., nith i[tent to commia an offence.-Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any pe6on any poison or any srupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thiflg with iotent 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 hc will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of l0 KL.J Crt-P No li2 of2020 & hatch either dcscnprron fbr a term uhich may extend to ten years, and shall also bc lrablc tcr finc." "336. Act eDdaDgering Iife or persooal safety of others.- \\'hoevcr doq\ anv acr so rashly or negligently as to endanger human lrle or tllc p.rsonal safety of othcrs, shatl be punished lvrth imprisonr)lenl oI cithcr descnption lor a term u,hich may extend to threc months. or with fine which may extend to two hundred and filir rupees. or u ith both." "420. Cheating and dishoncstly inducing delivery of propertt.,. \4'iroever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deccired to dellver any property to any person! or to make. alter or desrroy rhc q,hole or any part of a valuable securily. or aD\thurg which is signed or sealed, and which is capable ol being conrcned into a valuable security, shall be punished $rth imprrsonment of either description for a term uhich may extencl lo seven years, and shall also be liable to fine ." "34. Acts donc bl several persons in furtherance of common itrtention. When a cnnrinal act is done by several persons in lunherance of thc conrmon intcntion of all, each of such persons is liablc lbr thal act tn the sarne manner as tf it were done bv hinr alone." "511. Punishment for attrmpting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life oi other imprisonnlent. \!'hoevcr attempts to commit an offence punrshablc by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment. or t(r causc such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does anv- act rou,ards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishmcnt ol' such attempt, be punished with imprisonmcnt of any description provided for Ihe offence, for a term which may cxtend to one,half of the imprrsonment for life or, as the casc may be. one half of the longest term of imprison- ment provided lor lhat oll'ence- or with such fine as is provided for the offence. or * ith both " ,4 n KL,J C P n'o t 5t of 20)0 & botch RELEVANT PROVISIONS T]NDER COTP ACT "5. Prohibitiou of advertisement of cigarcttes and other tobacco products.-(t) No person engaged in, or purported to be engaged ir the production, supply or drstribution of cigarettes or any other tobacco products shall advertise and no person having control over a medium shall cause to be advertised cigarettes or any other tobacco products through that medium and no person shall take part in any advertisemeot which directly or indirectly suggests or promotes the use or consumption ofcigarettes or any other tobacco products. (2) No person, for any direct or indirect pecuniary beneftt, (a) display, cause to display, or pemrit or authorise to disptay any advertisement ofcigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (b) sell or cause to sell, or pcrmit 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 to the pubtic 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, buitding, wall, hoarding, frame, post or structure or upon or in any vehicle or shall display in any mamer whatsoever in any place any advertisement ofcigarettes or any other tobacco product: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in relation (a) an advenrsement of cigarettes or any othff tobacco product in or on a package containing cigarettes or any other tobacco product; (b) advenisement of cigarettes or any other lobacco product which is displayed at the entrance or inside a warehouse or a shop where cigarettes and any other tobacco producLs are offered for distribution or sale. (3) No person, shall, under a contract or otherwise promote or agree to promote the use or consurnption of- (a) cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (b) any trade mark or brand name of cigarettes or any other tobacco product in exchange for 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.- (t)Any person who produces or maoufactures cigarettes or tobacco products, which do not contarn, either on the package or t2 KL.J Crl.P No tt2of 20)0 & batch on thcir labcl, thc specrficd waming and the nicotine and tar contents. shall in lhe case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment lbr a rcmr u hrch may extend to hvo years, or with Iine rvhich nray ertend to five thousand mpees, or with both, and for thc second or subsequent conviction, wlth imprisonment for a tcrnr whrr:h may e\tcnd to five ycars and with fine which nlay ertcnd to lcn thousand ruPees (2) Any person rvho sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products rvhrch di) not contain either on the package or on their label, thc specified r*'arning and the nicotine arld tar contents shall in thc case of first conviction be punishablc with imprisonment fbr a tcrm. which may extend to one year, or with finc uhich rnav cxtt-nd ro onc thousand rupees, or with both, and, for thc second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment lor a teon q'hich may extend to two years and wlth fine whrch ma)'cxtend to three thousand rupees." ''7. Restrictions on trade alld commerce in, and production, suppll and distribution oI cigareltes and other tobacco products. (l) No person shall. directly or indirectly, produce, supply or distribute 6 clgare(cs or any othcr tobacco products unless cvcry packagc oi crqarettes or any other tobacco products produced. suppired or distnbuted by him bears thereon. or on its label such specrlied *amtng including a pictorial waming as rnay be prescriheil (2) No pcrson shall carr,v on trade or commerce in cigarettes or aoy othcr tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any othcr tobacco products sold, supplred or distributed by him bears thereon- or on its labcl. the spccified waming (3) No person shall impon cigarettcs or any other tobacco products for drstrrbution or supply for a valuable consideratioo or for sale in tndia unlcss every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products so imPoaed by him bears thereoo, or on its label, the spccriled rvanung. (4) fhe specrfierl rvaming shlll appear on not less than ooe of the largest panels of the package in which cigarettes or any other :l I] KI,,J C.t P No.l52 o12020 & batch tobacco products have been packed for distribution, sale or supply for a valuable consideration. (5) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, supply or distribute cigaretles or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobaoco products produced, supplied or distributed by him indicates thereon, or on its label, the nicotioe and tar contents on each cigarctte 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 quantity thereofas may be prescribed by rules made under this Act-" RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER F.S S.Act "58. Penalty for contraventioDs for which no specific penalty is provided.-Whoever contmvenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulatioos made thereunder, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided in this Chapter, shall be liable to a penally which may extend to hvo lakh rupees." "59. Punishment for unsafe food.-Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on hrs behalf, manufachrres for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,- (i) where such failure or contravention does uot result in injury, wi(h imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (ii) wherc such failure or contravention results in a non-grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine which may exteod to three lakh rupees; (iii) where such failure or contraveotion results in a grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and also with fine whicb may extend to five lakh rupees; (iv) where such failure or contravenlion results in death, with imprisoDment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also with lure which shall not be less than tcn lakh rupees." l4 KI,,J C/t.? No 15) of 202(t d batch RELEVANT PROVISION UN'DER E.D. ACT ''3. Pcnalt]. .\r) pcrson disobcying any rcgulation or order made under thrs Act shall bc deemed to have committed an offencc punrshabl.- undcr scction IItS of the lodian Penal Code (45 of 1860 )" RELEYANT PROVISION UNDER D.NI. ACT "51. Punishmcrt for obstruction, etc. (l)Whoever, \\rlhout rrasonable cause (l) Whoever, without rcasonablc cause " (a) obstrxcts any olficer or cmployec of thc Central Government or the State Govcmment. or a person authorised by the National Authority or Stare Aurhority or Distnct Authority in the discharge of his lunctions Lrndcr this Act; or (b) refuses to conply rvith any drrectron given by or on behalf of the Ccntral Co\.emment or the State Govemment or the Nalronal Executivc Committec or the State Executive (lommittce or the l)rstnct Authority under thts Act, shall on convlctron be punishab)c with imprisonment for a term which may extend to onc r-car or *ith finc, or rvith both, and if such obstructiorr or rcfusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent dalger lhereo[-, shall on conviction be punishablc rvrth imprisomrent for a term which may extend to hvo years. notes on clauses Clauses 5l to 58 (Secs. 5l to 58) sceks to lay doqn rvhat wlll constitutc an offence in tenns of obstruction of the l'unctions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of rclief rnatenal or funds, issuance of false waming, f'ailurc ol an olficer to perlorm the duty imposed on him under thc Acl \\ lthoul duc pcmrission or lawful excuse, or his connirance at contravcntion of thc provisions o[ the Act. l'he clauses also pr,l'rdt- [or pcnaltics for these olfences."

8. The /ls involvcd in thc prcscnt pctilions is no more les integra. A learned Singlc Judge ol'thc High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State ol'l elangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubdcr v. State of Tclangana4 had an occasion to deal with the issues involved in the present criminal petitions. After referring to various provisions oi IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and also the principle laid dorvn by rhe Apcx Court and other High Couns '. Crt.P. No lTl l of2t)18&barch.decrdedon1706 lr)t8 l5 KL,J C.LP. tio 152 ol2020 & botch in several judgments, the leamed Single Judge had framed the issues, which are as under: " 1) Whether the respondent/ Sub'Inspcctor of Police, is competent to investigate into the offence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(l) of FSS Act? 2) Whether the petitioners in all the petltions are found committing any act with malicious intention, with knowlcdge and reason to believe that such act likely to spre.ad the infection ofany disease dangerous to life? And whether the p€titioners selling or offering or exposing for sale as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxrous or is in a state unfit for food or drink or reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink? lf so, are they liable to be proceeded for the offence punishable under Sections 270 ar,d 273 IPC,?''

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) of FSS Act, as they were not empowered under the said Act to launch the prosecution, but only Food Safety Officer appointed by the Govemment alone is competent to launch prosecution for those two offences. With the said findings, the leamed Singlc 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 chcwing tobacco and khaini are not the'food'within the definition of Section - 3O of the FSS Act and the manufacture, sale or i- r6 KL,J Crl.P No lt2 of202'1ri hatch exposing for sale of'tobacco etc.. is govemed by the provisions of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the provisions of IPC. Thc respondents policc arc incompetent to investigate thc ollcnce punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) of the FSS Act and allegations in the charge shcet couplcd wrth the statements do not disclose the commission ol'the oflence punishable under Section ' 273 of IPC since transportation of noxious lood is not included under Section - 273 of lPC. Ihe act done by thc accused therein i.c., transportation ol khaini and chcwing tobacco though dangerous to human life, it *'ould not spread or inlect or causc any disease on account of transportation and if those producl.s are consumed by human bcing, it uould certainly cause damage to the health. Therefore, transportation ol khaini or chewing tobacco by itself islot an offence under Section - 210 ol'IPC. Pan Masala is not a tobacco product to fall within thc purvicw ol COTP Act. Therefore, the provisions of thc CIO'tl' Act have no application, thereby registration of crime on the ground of'violarion oi Sections - 1 (l) (2) (3) (5) and Section - 26 of COTP Act rs an illegality. The learned Single Judge further held that rcgistration o1'cases lor the olfence under Section - 20 (2) read with 7 (2) ol'['OTP Act is illegal. With the said findings, the leamed Single Judge has quashed the crirnes and calendar cases irt the said judgment. 4 f, I t7 KL,J Crt P. No.l52 of2020 & bot.h ll. In Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasadhi Tripati Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradeshs, a leamed Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravti had also an occasion to deal with the said issue. After referring to the contentions of the respective parties therein, various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and relying on the principle laid down in Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia3, Joseph Kurian v. State of Kerala5, Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr, M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., v. State of U.P.7, Sanjay Anjay Stores v. Union o[ Indias, Boop Singh Tyagi v. Statee, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalro and Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the leamed Single Judge has quashed the FIRs / Calendar Cases. Thc learned Single Judge referring to the law laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubderr held that despite the laid authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues. The said judgment attained finality. Even then, 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 ol IPC, the leamed Judge in Sri Jaganath Enterprisess hetd that the offences registered under the said Sections are not maintainable. It further held that the provisions of the COTP Act can only be pressed into service in the limited

5. 2o2o (l) ALT (crt.) 215 (APHC) u. r995 (r) scj 277 7. 20l I (2) crimes 250 3. 2017 scc online cal 16321 '.2002cd.L.1.2812 ro. 1992 supp (l) scc 135 'l I 18 KL..I Crl P iro ljz ot )021t d.tnlch circumstances only $here there is violation ofSections 4, 5, 6, 7 and I 0 of the COTP Act. By rclerring to the principle laid down by the Apex Coun in Bhajan Lalr0 and M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd.7, the lcamecl Single Judge has quashed the proceedings in various crimcs / calendar cases.

12. Another leamed Singlc Judge of the High Court of Andka Pradesh at Arnaravati in V. Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradeshll had also an occasion to deal with the said issue and agreed with the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera.

13. In Sayyed Ilassan Sayyed Subhanr, the Apex Court whrle dealing with legality o{'the order passed by the Bombay High Courr in a batch ol criminal u rir petitions and cnminal applications, which were hlcd challenging the registration of FIRs for the offences under Sections - 188,272, ?73 antl 328 of IPC and Sections - 26 and l0 ol' the FSS Act where thcre is an allegation of transporlation and sale o1' Gutka / Pan Masala ctc., held that the judgment of llombay High Court is contrary to thc provisions of the Act and law [aid down by it. With the said finding. the Apex Couft rernitted the matter to lhe Bombay High Coun lor liesh consideration on the issue that whether the aforesaid ofl'ences arc rnade out in the FIRs, which are subject matter ofthe cases pending before the Bombay High Court. 'r.2020 Suprenrc (AP) 1.18 \ l9 KL.J trl P No.l52 of2020 & barch

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 allegatidns against the accused in respective cases are transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. In Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the leamed Single observed that transportation ol chewing tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable undcr Section - 270 of IPC and that manufacturing ofpan masala is not included in Section - 2'73 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 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 is not by itself is not an offence under Section - 270 of IPC and it would fall within Section 270 of lPC."

15. Section - 272 ol IPC makes punishablc an offence by a person, who adulterates any article of food or drink. Therefore, the said section would only come into play if lood 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) t \b 20 KL-J Ctl.l' No It) of202(t & botch (a) of the FSS Act dcals with 'adulteran[' which means a material which could make the 'food' unsale or sub-standard or mis-branded. According to Section - 212 of IPC, il a material is used to make thc food unsa lcls ub- standard or mis-branded, then only the olfence u'ould be anracted. Whereas. as discussed supra, the allegation in the prescnt batch ol'cases is u'ith regard to transportation, posses;ion, storage. sale and purchase ol'banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku I gutka I khaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. Thereforc, according to this Court, the said allegation does not fall within the ambit ol Section - 212 ol' IPC. Therefore, I agree with the principle laid down by the leamed Single Judges of the High Court of Anrlhra Pradcsh in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Rao".

16. In Joseph Kurian6. the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Ior Section - 272 IPC. to be attracted, the lollowing should be present. (l) That the article involved was food and drink meant to be consumed by livc persons; (2) that the accused adulterated it and the adulteration rendercd it noxious as a 'food or drink'; (3) that the accused knew at the tinle of adulteration that he would sell the article as food or drink and kneu that such article cannot be sold as lood or drink. The Hon'blc Supreme Court clearly held that the offence is completed on the introduction of the adulterant. 'Adulterant' would mean that a material rvhich is mixed to make the'food'unsafe or drink unsale. In thc present case on hand, tobacco is not a lood or lfl,l 2t KL'J C.l P- No 152 of 2020 & hotch drink and what is stated to bc 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 oi IPC is concemed, in the same judgment it was held as follows: "10. In order to prove,offence under Section 328 the prosecution is required to prove that the substance ln question was a poison, or any stuperying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug etc, that the accused admioistered the substance to the complainant or caused the complainant to take such substance, that he did so wrth intent to cause hurt or knowing it to be tikety 19 that he would thereby cause hurt' or with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of an offlence' It is, therefore, essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused was directly responsible flor administering poisoD elc or causing it to be taken by any person, through another" " - " Tobacco does not fit into this definition

18. Section - 273 of IPC deals with sate of a noxious food or drink, and as per which, whoever sells, or oflcrs 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 olfers 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' i' n$a"nnta in t 22 KL.J 152 Dl202t & hatch C P ^o IPC or in FSS Act. As pcr the dictionary meaning, the word 'no>lious' is harmlul. deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As stated above, thc allegation in the cntire batch of present criminal petitions is rvith regard to transportation. posscssion, storage, sale and purchase of banned products vE.. tobacco / tambaku I g*ka lkhaini / zarda,1 1;an rnasala etc.. respectively. Therefore, according to this Courl. the contents oI the comp laint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section - 271 ol' IPC.

19. As far as scction - I 88 IPC is concerned , as per the settled law on thc subjcct. bcfore an accused is charged, there must be; an ordcr duly promulgatcd by the public servant; the public seruant must havc the lawlul authoritt'to promulgate the order; the person flouting the same should havc knowlcdge about the order directing him to abstain lrom the act; he must disobey the said order with the knowledqc; and such disobedrence of the duly promulgated order should causc a danger to the human life etc. In Boop Singh Tyagie a Division Bcnch ol Allahabad High Court held that right to promulgate the ordinance/order is also an issue which is being raised, becausc under the FSS Act. the Clornmissioner of Food Safety alone has the authority to pass the orders only if the article of 'food' can cause:; danger or is injurious to health. * a

1.2 KI, J ( rl t, .\o 152 o/ )0)0 & botch on their label, the spccified u,aming and the nrcotinc alrd 1ar contents, shall in the case of first conviction bc punishable wirh lmprisonment for a lerm which mav cxtend to two ycars, or wi0r fine which may exlend to five thousand rupees, or wirh both, and for the second or subsequent conviction, rvith imprisonment lor a term which may extend to five years and rvirh fine which may extend to ten thousand rupecs (2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarefles or lobacco products which do not contain either on rhc package or on rheir label, the specified warning and thc nicolinc and tar conlents shall in the case of first convic(ion be punishable with imprisonment for a lerm, which may extcnd to one ycar, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupecs, or with both, and, for the second or subsequcnt conviction, rvith imprisonmcnt for a term which may cxtend to two ycars and with fine which may extend to thrce thousand mpces." "7. Restrictions on trade and commerce in, and productioo, supply and distribution of cigarcttes and otber tobacco products,- (l) No person shall, drrectly or indirecrly, produce, supply or distribute 6 cigarettes or any other tobacco producrs unless every package of cigarefies or any othcr tobacco producrs produced, supplied or distriburcd by him bears rhcreon, or on irs labcl such specified waming including a pictonal wanrrng as may be prescribed. (2) No person shall carry on trade or commercc in cigarcrtes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarcttcs or any other tobacco products sold, supplied or disrnburcd by hinr bears thereoo, or on its Iabel, the specified wamrng. (3) No person shall import cigarettes or any othcr tobacco products for distribution or supply for a valuable consideration or for salc in India unless evcry package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products so imponcd by him bears thercon, or on its label, the specified warnrng. (4) The specificd waming shall appcar on no1 less than onc o[ the largest panels of rhe package in 'which cieT or anr other & IN TIIT] IIIGII (.()T:It1. T,'OR ],HE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: tIyI)ERAtIAD CORAIVI: * I'tII.] IIO\,ItI-[: SRI .ruSTICE K. LAKSHMAN t. Pu'II'lto N No.15 z oF 2020 & Batch + CRIl\II\ 7o Dclivercrl on: 05-07_2021 Ilctryeen i n C rl.t' No.l52 ot ?020 # Mr. Mohd .lameel Ahrncd S l.hc.Strrc ,rl lclrrrn;rrr.r. re1, br public prosccutor llr!ll (-ourl ,,f I cl;rrrlrrnrr Il!lq1x;1u6 & another Vs. Petitioner Respondents ! For rcspective peritroncr s ^ For Ilespontlcrrts < Gist > I{ead Notc ? Cases Rel-errcrl Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed Mr. Cajanand Chakavarthy Mr. K Surender Mr. Praveen Kumar Veenala Ms. P. Radhika Mr. Srioivas Reddy Balakisri Ms. C. Sunitha Kuman Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar Mr. S.M. Subhan Ms. N. Arrhi Mr. Y. Bala Murali Mr. Boggula Raju Mr S. Chandrasekhar Mr. V Yadukrishna Sainarh Respective leamed counsel Leamed Public prosecutor I l l 4 j 6 1 E. 9. l0 l2 l0 tU AIR (SC) jl.1s 2016Cn LJ t-ot 2019 S( ( Ont rrre Ilonr ts57 :,,". ),,.,.r],,.r .1,,' d .\ r,,r,, dc,,r..J,,n .17 u8.20tE lu-o ( ll AL | (r'r| ,li L rJ, r I l'rt)5 (l)S( I t-7 20ll (2)Cnmcs ?i0 2017 S('( Ontrnc (..rI tar)t 2002 Crl LJ 28il re9l Supp ( r) S(.C .l] j 2020 Supreore (^p) llS Cnrnrndj l(t run \u r t : | .,r{r, ,J-r r.lec on I 7 0q 2009 r nnundt i,errrron \o ,i-,1. , r . )t,. J,. .rte,t on lb t0.201 t s 2 XL.J ( rl P lo lt: ol 2020 & I'ot.h HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.l52. 153 . t55, r62 & 5t26 0F 2020 AND 3498. 3s00 3 50I 3514 3768 3879 4046 4070 4077 4098 4099 0.41 02 4l l0 4l l9 4140 4t4t 4l 5l 4157 4t7E 4182 4187 4194 4216 4230 4247 4219 4251.42s8, 4262. 4277. 4361,4405, 4415. 4542, 4612, 46t5.4622. 4632, 4640, 4 0 46E1.4127.477 5 & 482s OF 2021 COMNION ORDER 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 / Calcndar Cases, olfences alleged, nature of offences etc., are mentioned in the tbllowing tabular form: l I SI No 0l 02

0.i 0{ 05 06 01 ;-- Crl.P No. l16Et2t 1879/2t 4046/2t 40'77/21 o99/ 2 00t 2 0rJ 4 09 4 t4l/2t l0 4l5 t/2 t 1t51t2t 4tE1/2t Crime No. 217120 of PS Manoharabad 33/21 of PS Kadam 78/21 of PS (T) Adilabad 2l/21 of PS Easgoan r85/2 t of PS (T) Nirmal No 16121 of PS Kourala No 38/21 of PS Easgoan 455/21 of PS Kukarpally 45121 of PS Chiragpally 198/21 of PS Choutuppal ll4l21 of PS Chityal (NLC) 74121 ofPS !4ghunadhpalem 202,21 of PS (T) Mancherial Number accused accused Al &2 Al tol accused accused accused Al tol accused Al ro4 Al &2 accused Offences alleSedly corlvnirted 272, 2t3 tPC & 20 (2) tw 7(2) ot COTPA 2-10 & 213 tPC -do- -do 270, z1J tPC & 20 (2)ofCOTPA 270 & 273 IPC 210 &21] tPC 336, 273 & t8E IPC & 59 (i) of FSSA 270 & 21] tPC & 20(2) t/w 't(2) of COTPA 272 & 273 tPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA 272. 2'73 & 129 IPC & 20 (r) & 7 (l) ofCOTPA 210&213 tPC ,do- Narure ofoflence Transponation ofAmber Sale ofbannc{ tobacco Sale ofgutkrrobacco gq4qryl Possession of gurka /tobacco rn pan shop -qutka Transportatron of ibrted Possessron oftobacco products in thc house Possession ofbannljd gulka & orher lobacco 'Iransponariol| and sale ofprohibired lobacco _ products Transponarion of tobacco products SloraSe oflobacco roducs for sale Pur.hase and salc of prohibited lobacco roducts Transponadon ofbanned Possession ofbanned t-- Ct I l' \o IJ) o[ 2021t & hdl1i ^:t.J Possession ofbannec Eutkapl)durrs Sale ofgurka rnd roducrs Aboul to lranspon noxious gurka and Sale ofbanned gurka a:r- tobaccg pr,rducrs TransponariorL o: gurLi do- do- I88, 272, 27t & t28 rPC r8E, t72 & 271 IPC -do 38, 269, 270, 271 r/w 34 IPC & lotEDA&51 (-b-) o fDMA 270 & 271 IPC -do- ri !v l,l IPC 328 nw 5t I, 212 & 27] IPC

210. 212 & 271 IPC & 20 (2) ot COTPA 128, 272. 271 & IIIE IPC 128, 210 & 213 r/w 5ll IPC & 20 (2 OfCO I PA Sale of bannal robacco (tambaku) prcducts rn rrY _ Transpona ulka/lobacco Posscssion of banneJ ulka /robacco lroducl( Possession oIrobrcco producrs tn krrana shcp Possession of pr:hibired tobacco producrs for sal: Transponanon ol_banned lobacc olgultg_lr rc ke I s , Irossession ofbrnned gutka & loba:co cts in kirar Transponariox of cigareue or other rotracco products wirhoui.valid licensc a shgf Salc ofgurka & ki,riDr Transporration of barred Al &2 At & 2 Alrol At&2 Al & 2 Al l ,\1.t2 (]AI,ENDAR CASES 210. 2-t E r88.420 IPC & 58 ofFSSA 212 & 273 IP(' & 59 ol FSSA.2006 120, 270 & r7t tPC & 58 otFSSA 171, 273, 116 & 410 IPC & 20 (2) of CO I'PA l Tmnsponatrorr of banned .arda producrs Sale ol zarda illegail! Transponaoon of banned zarca Sale ofprohibired 8urk. and chewrng robacco product i I I Al&l rE8. 270 & ]7'] IPC ,lto & 271 IPC .[0 & 27] lPt- & 20 (rr ) of corPA.200l Transpo(atron of Amber gu,kir pockels Sale ofbanned tobacco ard gutka products Transponarion of tobaccc and cl5 6tlrl (,aiaii I osn r\drlabad 101,1I ol I'f I Iosn q0/21 of I,s I Iown {drlabad 9l/2, of I,S ^dilahad 10r1ll of ILS Iown dilabad I6l/l I ol PS Abdullapunrrer 102121 ,,J PS I I ou'n Nulg:rda lilill of I,S ll (T) Nalconda - li7/21 of PS III (T) Kolhirgu(lcnr l2 i/.l I of PS .N!u!l l o!r) 89/10 of PS N{anrada I 3612 t ,,i PS PeddavoL,n l4 15 I6 t1 IE l9 1111t2t 4249t2t 12i l/2 I 4li3/l I I262/l I 1217t)t

20. 2t 440i/21 44 t5/11 22 4512/2t 4615/2t

46.10.'l I 468 t12l 2) 24 25 26 4171t2t l6{/21 ol PS ,^drbarla 21 4115/. I

28. 48)5/21 ll4l21 ol PSJ ( r) t\dgo,rda 215/t I ot I'S Khanrmanr (R) 29 .10 l2 1 l L l I52/2t) I5r/20 15i,,20 I6212A t5 l500rl l t5r5/t9 0f I /\tI{r:( WarangaL 172.1/lq ot \\'I ,\( \t\1. lJyd t, rs,ll .r I,AJ TIt (' !!ralsar {717i IE ol xt .\ N \1. Sec bad I l l Specral Nlagrst.irr,l of Il Cl.rr:. lss!,,l 2tA2A ol J F'C]\I, Dcvarkorrd? iqollto ol I JF( \1. llt'.1.,to,,r, l -l t 4 KL-J Ctl t' \o t tz o[ 2020 & hotch 188, 270 & 271 lPC,20 (2)of COTPA, lotEDA& 5l (b) of DMA

188.210.213 & 420 tPC & 20 (2) of COTPA 272 & 271 rPC & 20 (2) rtw 1 12) of COTPA 2',70 & 27 3 rPC & 20 (2) rlw -7 (2\ o( COTPA 2'10, 21t , 212 & 273 rlw 34 IPC Sec.3 olhDA 272 & 271 IPC & Sec 20 (l), 20 (2) of COTP^ 2?0 &273 rPC & 20(2) ofCOPTA It8, 272 & 27f tPC & 20 (2)&5of COTPA 210 & 21i IPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA Srorage ofbanned gutka and other robacco producrs illegally for sale Supply ofgurka and olher tobacco products Transponatron oIAmbl]r tobacco Transponanon ofpan masala and banned gulka Transponation ofcouon seeds and banncd gutka Transponallon of banned tobacco and gutka Purchase and sale ofbanned gutka Sale oftobacco produc15 in his shop and disobeyrng the rules imposed by Covt in N N 5 0 5 F S S t2 I ,rjrilA I ransponahon ofAmber gulka Al & 2 Al ro5 Al&2 accused accusd F.t &,2 At &2 do- Transponatron o I gutka./pan masala Al & 2 210 &21f tPc Possessron of tobacco products illegally for sale Sole accused Ar&2 A] -do do r/w l4 rPC & 20 (2) of COTPA Purchasc and sale ofprohrbrled guka pockers Posscssion ofgulka packeLs al bus stand for sale illegally l ransponatron ofbanned lobacco producrs l6

452./20 of XXV MMC, lblahimparan Al & 2 31 612/19 of xxv MMC, Al to 8 40't0/21 l8 l9 4t tu2l 40 4 I l9/21 {t 54't/21 of PJMFC, Cajwel 509120 of Spl.PCR Mobrle Coun-cum' JMFC, Adilabad 512n0 of SpI PCR Mobilc Coun cunr- .,MFC, Adrlabad STC No.20/21 of IV AMM, 42 4l l4 45 ,16 11 r3 4t7Et2l 4t94t2t 4Zl6/?t

11.30n1 {t6t2t ,16t 2/l l 1622t2t .19 1632t2t AJCJ, L.B Nagar 810/21 o[ IA,lMFC, Khammam 6t6i2r of Nampally ^cMM, ] I 1298/21 of PJMFC, Khammam 829121 of PJMFC, Khammam 108/21 o[ AJMFC, Asifabad 5lli20 of AJMFC, Nlrmal 622/19 of AJMFC, Nirmal 4l3l2l of AJMFC, Nirmal

2. Heard Mr, M.A.K. Mukheed, Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthy, Mr. K. Surender, Mr. Praveen Kumar Vecrjala, Ms. P. Radhika, { t t t' i\o t tt o[ 2o2A & bdtch Mr- Srinivas Reddv Balakrsti. Ms. Ll. Sunirha Kumari. Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Mr. S M. Suhhan. Ms, N. Arrhi, Mr. Y, Bala Murali, Mr. Boggula Raju. NIr. S. Chandrasckhar, Mr. V. Yadukrrshna Sainath, leamcd coulsel appcarin!: on bchalloI respcctive petitioners and leamcd Public I'rosccutor appcaring on behalf of respondents - State.

3. The qucstion invol'"cd rn all the abovc t.natlers is one and the same and, thereforc, the sarnc arc disposed of by way ol'this comrnon order.

4. The main allcgatiorrs a!,alnst lire pctitioncrs - accused are that they were transpolting. posscssing, storing, selling and purchasing thc banncd plrducts r,t:., robacco / tambaku t gutlr.a t khaini / zalda / pan nrasala respcclivcly. The olt'enccs alleged against the petitioners are unrler Scctions lll8, 270. 269,211,272,2j3,325, 336 & 420 read with l4 anri 5l I ol'rhc Intlian l.cnal Code, 1860 (tor shofl 'IPC'); Scctions - 20 ( I ). 20 (2) and 5 read with 7(2) and 7 (3) of thc Cigarcftes and Oth.:r- 'l ohacco l,rorlucrs (prohibition of Advertisemcnt and Rcgulation ol Ir-adc and Commercc, production, Supply and Distribution) Acr. ?001 ({'or shorr .(_-O1 p Acr,); Sections - 58 and 59 of the Foorl Salerl, and Srandards Act, 2006 (for short .FSS Act'), Section - 3 of thc Epidcmic Diseases Act, lg97 (lor short .ED Act') and Section 5 | (b) ol' the I)rsasrcr Managcmenl Act, 2005 (frrr short DS Act) respecrively. 6 KL.J Cll P Na lt) of2020 & botch

5. 1'hc respcctive leamcd counscl appcaring on behalf of the petitioners in thc abovc criminal pctitions would submit that the contents of complaint / charge shect lacks the ingrcdients of the offences alleged against the accused. For the olfences under the provisions oI FSS Act. only Food Salety Olficer is having power to initiate criminal procccdings against accuscd and the police are not having any power lo lcgislcr a case lor the offences under the provisions ol FSS Act. Thcre is no inducement by the petitioners and, therefore, of'fcncc undcr Section - 420 of IPC does not arise. According to them. thc contenls ol'complaint i charge sheet are also lacking the ingrcdicnts oItlre olTcnccs under Sections -269,210,271, 2'12,273,328 and 336 ol IPC. i) According to them. therc is no violation ofSections - 20 (l), 20 (2) and 5 read rvith 7 (2) and 7 (3) of the COTP Act. The Investigating Olficers / Conrplainants without following the procedure laid down undcr thc Codc of Cnminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), have registered the cases lor the olfence under Section - 188 of IPC and laid charge shcet against the accused. Necessary ingredients tc attract thc provisions of Section - 3 of the ED Act and Scction - 5l (b) ol the DM Act are lacking in the complaint / charge sheet. ii) With the above said submissions, the respective leamed counscl sought to quash the proccedings in the alor rimes / calendar cascs. KI,,J Ctl P ,\'a li2 of 202t) 6 botch

6. On the otlrcr hand. lcanred Public Prosccuror referring to rhe principle laid dor',,n in thc Statc of Maharashtra v. Salycd Hassan Sayyed Subhan' by the Hon'ble Suprcrnc Court and in Canesh Pandurang Jadhao r. The Statc of l\{aharashtraz and Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia v. -I'hc State of Nlaharashtrar hy the Bornbay Fligh Court ri.,ould submir that 1;olrcc arc having power to regisrcr cases under various provisions ol'IPC, COTP Act, ED Act and DM Act. Thcrc is no irregularity in rcgistcring crirncs. scizing malerial including the vehiclcs and Iaving chargc sheet against rcspectlye accused in thc alirresairl crimcs calendar cases. Accortling to him, thc accuscd were lransportinu- possessing, storing. selling and purchasing thc hanncd producrs ui,-., tobacco / tarnbaku i gutka / khaini / zarda / pan nrasala rcspectively. According to him, the accused havc to |a..fir1,". lnvestrgatlon trial and prove thcir innocence, and instcari oi' tloing so, thcy havc filcd thc present criminal pctitrons undcr Secrion 482 ol't'r.P.C. rvhich carurot be considercd at lhis sta!,c i) With thc abor c said submissions. lcamed public prosecuror sought to dismiss the ahovc crjminal petitions

7. ln vierv ol rhc above rival submissions, it rs apposite to extract lhe relevant provislons ol IPC, COTp Act, FSS act, ED,lrci and DM Act, rvhiclt arc irs under: '.2ot8aln1s{;sr,rs t.20t6cn L I 2,tot ' :Otq SCC Crut ,nc Bon txi t t d E ^,J Ci P No lt2 of2020 & ba'.h RELEVANI' PROVISIONS UNDER IPC "188. Disobcdience to order duly promulgatcd by public servant. Whocver, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public scn'ant lawfully empowercd to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstaur liom a certain act, or to take certain order with ccnain propeny in his possession or under his managcmenl- disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobcdience causcs or lends to cause obstruction, annoyance or rn.;ury. or risk ol'ob\lrucl roll. anroyuncc or injury, to any person lawfully employed. be punished with simple imprrsonment for a term which nray extend to one moulh or with fine which may extend to trvo hundrcd rupees, or rv(h both; and if such disobedience causcs or trends to caus€ danger to human life, health or salcty, or causcs or tcnds to cause a rrot or afliay, shall bc punrshcd wrth inrprisor)lnent of eithcr description for a terrn which may extcnd to six months, or with fine which may extend to one lhousand rupces. or u,ith both. Explanation. It is |lot necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contcmplate his disobedience as likely to producc harm. It is sulficieot that he knows ofthe order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likcly to producc, harm. Illustration An ordcr is promulgated by a public servant lawfully cmpowercd to promulgate such ordcr, dlrecting that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knou,ingly drsobcys thc order, and thercby causes danger ofriot. A has con)mitted the ollence dctincd in this section." "269. Ncgligent act likely to sprcad infcctioI| of disease dangerous to life. Whoever unlarvfully or negligently does any act u.hich is. and which he knows or has reason to believe lo be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to lrfe, shall be punished with imprisonment of cither description lor a tcrm which may cxtend to six months, or with finc, or with borh." "270- Malignanl act likely to spread infection of tease dangerous to li[e Whoc',er rrralignanlly docs any acl ,3hich i 9 \t _J ('tl f' \a lil ol )0:ttiltot.h ls. and \\hrch hc knows or has rcason 1o believe to be. likcly to spread thc infccrron of any discasc dangcrous ro hfe, shall be punishcd rvith lrnprisonrnenl of erther description for a rc.m rvhich may exrend to two years, or with tinc, or with both." ''271. Disobedierrce to quarantine rulc. Wloevcr knorvingly disobeys any ruk: made and promulgated bv the Goventmcnr lor putling any vcsscl into a state ofquarantine. or flor regulating thc intcrcoursc of Yessels in a state of quarantine u,ith thc shorc or uith other vessels, or for rcgulating the lntercoursc between places u'hcre an Lni'cctious discase prcvails and other placcs, shall be punished wrlh imprisonmcnt ol'eirher descriprron fbr a tenn which may extend to six months, or rvrth llnc, or with bo th. " "272, Adulteration of food or drink intcnded for sale. Whoever adulter.lcs any articlc of lood or drink. so as 10 makc such article noxtous as food or drinl. intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knorving ir ro be likcly thar rhe sanre rvrll be sold a. food or drink, shall be punished rvirh imprisonment of crther <icscription for a (erm which may extend to six months, or q,ith fine tvhich may extend to one thousand mPces, or wirh both." "273. Salc of noxious food or drink. Wlroevcr sclls. or ollers or cxposes lor salc- as food or drink, any anicle rvhich has becn rendercd or has bccorne noxious. or is in a srate unfit for lbod or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that thc sarttc is nox- ious as food or dnnk, shall be punished wtth tmprisonmcllt of either descriptron lbr a term whrch nray extend lo slx monlhs, or with linc rvhich nray extencl to onc thousand mpees. or u,th both." "328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intcnt to commit au offence. Whoever adrninisters to or causss to bc takcn by anv person aoy porson or any srupe[yine, inloxicatrng or un\\ holcsome drug, or othcr thing with intent to causc hun to such person, or wirh intent to commit or to lacrlrratr: thc commrssion ol-an ofltncc or knorvrnq i( to be likely thar hc rvill thcreb)' cause hurr, shall bc punishcd rvith imprisonrnent ol' EI d IO ctl I, \'o t:2 ol2020 & botch K L-.1 either description lor a term which rnay cxleud to ten ycars, and shall also be lrable to fine " "336. Act cndangeriflg life or personal safety of others - Whoever does any act so rashly or negligcntly as to cndangcr human life or the personal safety of others, shall bc punished with imprisonment of either description for a tcrm which may extend to three months, or wrth fine rvhrch may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both." "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-Whoevcr cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any propeny to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any pan ol-a valuable security, or anything which is signcd or scalcd. and which is capable of being convened rnto a valuablc sccurity, shall be punished with imprisonmcnl of either description for a temr which may extend to seven ycars, and shall also be liablc to fine." "34. Acts dooe by several pcrsons in furthcrancc of common intention.-whcn a criminal act is done by sevcral persons in funherance of the common intention of all. each of such persons is liable for lhat act in the samc manncr as il it were done by him alone." "511. Punishment for attempting to commit offcnccs punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonmcnt.-Whoever attempts to conrnrit an oflencc punishable by this Code with imprisonnrent lor lile or imprisonment, or to cause such an ol-fencc to bc committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commrssron of the offence, shall, where no express provisrrx is madc by thrs Code for the punishment of such attempt. be punrshcd rvith imprisonment ofany description providcd for the ot'fencc, lor a term which may extcnd to one half of the imprisonnrcnt for life or, as the case may be, ooe-half of the longest term of imprison- menl provided for that offence, or r.rth such finc as is provrded for the offence, or with both." t f; AI. J C,l | .\o Ij2 ol lt):0 l aatch RELEVANI- PITOvISIONS UNDER COTP ACT "5 Prohibition of rdvcrtisemeot of cigarettes and other tol)acco products (1) No pcrson engaged in, or purponed to be cngaged in thc productron. supply or distribution ofcigarettes or any other tobacco products shall advenise and no person having control ovcr a rnedirrm shall cause to be advertised cigarcttes or anv othrr tobacco products through that medrum and no pcrsor) shilil take part in any advenisement rvhiclr directly or lrdrrectly suggcsts or promotes the use or consumption of crgarettes or any other tobacco producrs. (2) No pcrsou. lbr any drrect or indircct pecuniary bencfit. (a) display, carrsc to display. or permit or authorisc to display any advertrsenrenr of cigarettcs or any other tobacco producr: or (b) sell or cause lo sell, or pcrmit or authonse to sell a filnr or video lape conrarning advertisemcnt of crgarcttcs or any olher tobacco product. c,r (c) distribute, cause to distnbute, or pcrmir or authorise to distribute to the public any lcallet, hand-bill or documenr which is or whrch contains an adverlisenrenl of cigarettcs or any othcr tobacco product: or (d) ercct, cxhibrt. lix or rctain upon or over any land, building. wall, hoarding, liame, post or structure or upon or in any vehrcle or shall display in anv manrrer rvhatsoever in any place anv advertrsement of clgarettes or any othcr tobacco product: Provided that this sub scction shall nor apply in relarion (a) an advcrtiseurcnt of cigarctles or any other tobacco product in or on a packase conlaining cigarettes or any other ()bacco product; (b) adverlisenrent of cigarettcs or any olher tobacco producl which is displaycd at the entrancc or inside a warehouse or a shop u,hcre cigitrcttes and any othcr robacco producrs are offered lor disrnbution or salc. (3) No person, shall, undcr a contract or otherwise prontote or agree lo promotc the use or consumplion ol- (a) cigarettes or anv olher tobacco product: or (b) any trade nark or brand name ofcigaretres or any other tobacco product rn exchangc lor a sponsorship, gili, prizc or scholarshrp given or ajlrecd to be given by anorhcr person." "20. Punishmcnt for failure to give spccined rvarning and nicotine and t r contents. (l)Any pcrson u'hc produccs or nlanulacturcs ciqarcttes or tobecco products. !\ hich tlo not contain, eilhcr on thc packagc or l-t 23 KL,J Ctt P. lo t 5l of 2020 & botch

20. ln N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.p., rep. by public Prosecutorr2 while dealing with the olfences under Sections _ lgg and 283 of IPC, the leamed Single Judge of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under: "5) Even if the allegation thar the peritioner 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 Section i0 of the Police Act, 186l could have bccn given only by the Superinteadent or the Assistant Supcrintendent of Police of the District but not by any of therr subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the police Act. lg6l and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) ofCode of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complainr in this regard has to be made by the public servant concemed or some other person to whom such a public servant is administrarively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal procedure, In the present case, thc charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspecror of police, who could nor 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(l)(a) ofCode of Criminal procedure_ 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 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 ". Crim,rral Petition No.5i2l of2009, decided on 17.09.2009 ,# 21 KL.J C.l.P. No 152 of202t, & balch indepcndcnr of the samc. Even otherwise, the conduct ol public n.reeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been consideretl as caLtsing any danger or injury to any pcrson. In so lar as the obstruction in any public way rs conccmed, which can also be covered by Section 2l'l ol thc Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet citcs onll,one rvitness to speak about the traffic janr caused by the road show. But, when the conduct ol tlre public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meetrng resulted in any inconvenicncc by rvay ol obstructing the traffic, the same cannot bc considcred to be rvith nccessary gurlty mens reo to oonstmc rhe existcnce of an offence punishable undcr Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances. lone of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the courplaint'chargc sheet being in violation of Section 1 95 ( I ) (a) ol (lode of Cnminal Procedure, has to fail As the cornplaint has failed due to its 1) unsustainab ilit1,, the proceedings in their entirety have to tail, though the l'' accused alone approached ihis Coun by way of this Criminal Petitron. "

21. ln Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.II.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari Districtr-1, ,,vhcrein by relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Raor2 and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lalr0 more parlicularly. guideline No.6, which says thal r'. Cnminal Petrtron .'o. I 524E o J l0 I 6, decrded on 26. I 0.201 6 t 25 KT,,J Crl P lo lj2 of20l0 & botch where thcre is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provtstons of the Code or the concemed Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proccedings and./or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,. providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, it was held that the proceedings in the said C.C. were quashed by exercising power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It was also lurther held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior pemrission under Section - I 55 (2) of Cr. P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint fited by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (l) (a) of Cr.P.C.

22. Yide Notification No.50liFSS- I/2020, dated 06.01.2020, the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana Directorate of Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, restricted the manufacnrrc, 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, khana, 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 extendcd for one more year. As per the information fumished and instructions received, several writ petitions were filed challenging the said * C 26 KL,J Crl I'. No 152 oI202A & barch Notifications belbrc this (loufi as u'ell as the Hon'ble Supreme C)ourt. A Division Bench of this Court dcclined to entertain some rvrit petitions on the grorlnd that the l{on'ble Supreme Court seized of the said issue. It is also rcle!ant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Oourt remandcd back the nratter 10 this Court. Therefore, such a notification can only be issued fbr entergetrcy situations and for prohibiting the distribution and salc ol'any aricle of a food cannot be lost sight ol Therefore, in vierv o1' thc law laid down in the above judgments including the judgments in Chidurala Shyamsubdera. Sri Jaganath Enterpriscss and V. Nageswara Raot'. According to this Court, Section - 188 ol' IPC ,'vill not attract to the allegations leveled against the petitioners hcrein in this batch of criminal petitions.

23. As lar as Scction - 328 ol IPC is concemed, it deals with causing hurt by rncans ol poison, etc., with intent to commit an offencc. As pcr thc said provision, whoever administers to or causes to be takcn by any person any poison or any st'rpefying, intoxicatrng or unwholcsome drug. or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to comrnit or to lacilitate the commission of an offencc or kno,'r ing it to bc likcly that he wi[[ thereby cause hurt, shall be punishcd u,ith imprisonrnent ol'cither description for a term which may extend to tcn years, and shall also be liable to fine. Therefole. there should be administering poison, intoxicating etc., with intent to cause hurt to such pcrson or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission ol an offcncc or knowing it to be likely that he will 27 KI,,J Ctt.P No 152 of 2020 & batch thereby causc hurt. As stated above, the allegations in the entire batch of criminal petitions are lacking. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaints / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of Section - 328 of IPC.

24. As far as Section - 336 of IPC is concemed, it deals with an act endangering life or personal safety of others, and as per which, whoever docs any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human lile or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with impns- onment of either description for a term which may extend to threc months, or with flne which may extend to two hundred and filty rupees, or with both. In the complaints / charge sheets, there is no such allegation of rash and negligent act which endangers human.tife or personal safety of others. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaints / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of Section - 336 of IPC.

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

26. As far as Section - 269 of IPC is concemed, it deals with negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life, and as per which, whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act ', I 28 KI..J C,l.P. io lt2 of 202A & batch which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread thc inlcction ol any discase dangcrous to life, sha[[ be punished with imprisonmcnt ol either dcscription lor a tenn which may extend to six months, or uith line, or with both. But, a perusal of the contents of conrplaints 1 charge sheets in thc present batch of cases, such ingredients arc Lacking and, therefore, Section - 269 of IPC does not arise in llrc prcscnt hateh o1'clses.

27. In vicw of the above said discussion, according to this Court, transportatiol). I)ossession, storage, sale and purchase of tobacco products are not totally banncd in the State of Telangana and also in the Country. -l hercfbrc, it cannot be said that Sections - 269, 270,211,272 and211.328, 336 and 420 of IPC are attracted to the cases in this batch.

28. As l'ar as the ollcnccs under FSS Act is concemed, as already discussed abore, rn Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the leanred Single Judge following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lalr0 held that thc police arc incompetent to takc cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) ol the FSS Act. ill\,estigating into the offences along with other offences under the pnrvisions of the IPC. It was further held that filing charge sheet is a grave illegality, as the Food Safety Officer alone is competent to inlestigate and to file charge sheet following the Rules laid rlown undcl Scctions ' 4l and 42 of FSS Act. In the present case, thc policc havc registered thc crime for the olfences L 29 KL,J Ctl P No.l52 of2020 & batch under Sections - 188, 270 and 273 of IPC. Therefore, in the present batch ofcases, entertaining the complaints / fiting the charge sheets by the police is contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubder{.

29. With regard to the offences under COTP Act, it is relevant to mention the objects and the reasons of the said Act 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 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 shalI advcrtise 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 unless a t0 KL.J Ctl P .\'o I 52 of 202) & botch every package of cigatettc or tobacco product contains a Specified waming (pictorial or otherwisc), Section - 4 of the COTP Act. bans smoking in public places. ln addirion, Section - 6 of the COTp Act. prohibits the salc ol'cisarettes or othcr tobacco products to a person who is under the age ol' i8 ycals are in an area within 100 yards ol any educational institution.

31. A reading ol'this Act. pa(icularly Sections - 4, 5, 6 ad 7 clearly shows that therc is no gcneral ban or general prohibition on the manufactu relsale of Iobacco products. 22 What is barred is merely the sale ofthese products to a person. rvho is bclow the age of l8 years and in an area within 100 yards of an cducational institution. 'fhe other aspects covereri b', Scctions - 5 and 7 of the COTp Act. deal with the advertiscment arld the warning, which is to be contained on a package, in which thc tobacco product is packed. This is a regulabry mechanisrn only. fhcrelbrc. according to this Court, the above said allegations of transportation. possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned tobacco products will not attract the of'fence under Section -7 of the COTP Act.

32. As far as Secrion - 20 (2) o{'the COTp Act is concemed, as stated above, the allegations against the petitioner in respective complaints / chargc shects arc that they were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing thc banned tobacco products to the customers illegally in ordcr to gain rvrongful profits. In view of the said allegation, it is apr ro rcler to Section - 20 (2) ol the COTP Act 3l KL.J Crt P No t52 of2020 & botch lor 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 tricotine and tar cootents.- (l).. (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 nrcotine and tar contents shall in the case of first conviction be punrshable with imprisooment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with hne 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 tkee thousand rupees."

33. Thus, Section - 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified waming and nicotine and tar contents. But, in the complaints / charge sheets, there is no allegation against the petitioncrs that they were carrying on trade or commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified waming on the said products. ln view ofthe same, the contents of the complaints I 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 waming. Thus, registering the crimes for the said offence against the petitioners is not only contrary to Section - 20 (2) ofCOTP Act, but also contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera. In view of the same, the offence under Section - 20 (2) of COTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree with the Crl P No t52 oJ 2020 & bntch principle laid down by thc leanrcd Single Judges of the High Court of Andka Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder{, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nagcsrvara Raolt.

34. For the lbrcgoing discussion and the authoritative principle of law, Criminal Petition Nos. 1768, 3819, 4046, 4071,4098, 40')9, 4to0, 4102, 4141, 4151. 1t57, 4t87. 4187, 4247, 4249, 4251, 4258, 4262, 4277,4405, 441_s. 4542, 4615, 4640, 4681, 4727, 4775 and 4825 of 2021 arc allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners thercin in the respectivc crimcs mcntioned therein. Since the proceedings in the aforesaid Criminal Petitions are quashed against the respectivc petitioners, the respective Station House Officers / Investigating Officers are hereby directed to retum.lhc seized property / vchicles on proper identification and verihcation of ownership undcr due acknorvledgment.

35. Furtlrer, Criminal Petition Nos. I52, 153, 155, 162 & 5826 of 2020,3498, 3500. 3509. 3514, 4070, 4110, 4119, 4140, 4178, 4194, 4216, 4730, 4361, 4612, 4622 and 4632 o[ 2021 are also allowed quashing the proccedings against the petitioners therein in the respective Calendar Cases mentioned therein. Since the proceedings are quashcd, the respectivc pctitioucrs are at liberty to file appropriate applications before the concemcd Magistrate [or retum of the seized property / r'ehicle and the Magistrate shall consider the same rn accordance with law. r ? 33 KI.J Ctl ? No 152 oI2o20 a barch As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed. osrH JULY, 2o2l !9!9: L.R copy to be marked (B/o.) Msr K. LAKSHMAN, J s E