The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No. 228 oI 2o24.on the file of Pitlam Police Station, Kamareddy District against the Petitioner. l.A. tJO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents / Pitlam Police Station, Kamareddy District to release the property 01) SR-1 Gutka tobacco 3120 pockets each packet contain 70 pouches in it and 01 pouch having value of Rs. 011 (3120*70*01 ) total amount Rs. 2,18,4001-, 02) V1 Gutka tobacco 572 pockets each pobket contain 30 pouches in it and 0'l pouch vale of Rs. 014 (572.30-01) total amount Rs.17,1601 seized in FIR No. 228 of 2024 on the file of Pitlam Police Station, Kamareddy District in favor of the Petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. This l)etition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Oriminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bala Murali Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following Order : THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JU\AIADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.16339 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioner-accused to qrrash the proceedings in FIR No.228 of 2024 on the file of Station House Officer, Pitlam Police Station, Karnareddy District. The offences alleged against the petitioner-accused. are under Sections 272, 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita (for short 'BNS) (Previously Sections 272 and273 of the Indian Penal Code) and 20(21 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, pt'oduction, supply and Distribution) Act (for short 'coPTA).

02. Heard Sri Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned -- Additio nal -P-ub lic Pro s ecu to r- fo r the S.tate --res p ondent.

03. In Chidura,la Shgamsubder t). State of Telangatudl, a learned Single Judge of the High Court, t CRL.P.No.373L ol2OL8 and batch dated 27.O8.2018 2 by following t.he guidelines laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryafta a. Bhajan La.l2, held that the Police are incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 45 and 59(1) of the Food Safety and Stande,rds (FSS) Act, 2006, investigating into the offence,s along with otkrer offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and filing charge sheet is grave illegality, &S the Food Officer alone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet [ollowing the Rules laid down under Sections 41 and 42 of FSS Act, whereas, in the present case, thre Police have registered the crime for the offences rrnder Sections 272, 273 and 336 read with Section 34 of IPC.

04. In so far as Section 2O(2) of tkre COPTA is concer:ned, the allegations against- the petitioner -are that- - he is se:Iling the tobacco products to the customers illegally in orde:r to gain wrongful profits. In view of the said 2 1992 Supp (l) l;CC 335 3 allegations' it is apt to refer to Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act for better appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question' and the same is as under: "20(2) AnA'" person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the case of first conuiction be punishable uith imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one Aear, or with fine which maA extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent conuiction, with impnsonment for a term which maA ertend to two Aears and with fine which maA extend to three thousand rupees."

05. Thus, Section 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. As stated above, the allegation against the petitioner herein is that they purchase the tobacco products and sell them to customers at higher to gein yrongful Profits, The pet!-t!on-e-I -r!--Ir-91q-er trad.er, nor supplier/distributor of cigarettes or any other tobacco products. There is no allegation in the charge sheet against the petitioner that he is carrying on the trade or commence in contraband or any other tobacco products j 4 without- label and specified warning on the said products. In view of the same, the contents of the charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section 2O(2) of the COTP Act. In the entire charge sheet, there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain the labels as well as statutory warning Therefore, registering the crime for the said offences against the petitioner is also contrary to Section - 20 (2) of COTP Act. Thus, the offence under Section - 20 (2) of COTP Act is also lia:Ie to be quashed against the petitioner. Therefore, the said proceedings in FIR No.228 of 2024 against the petitioner are contrary to the principle held by the learnecl Single Judge of the High Court in Chidurala Shyanrcubder (supra) and, accordingly, the sarne are liable to be quashed.

16. In view of the above submission, the presen: Criminal Petition is allowed and the procee(lings in FIR No.228 of 2024 on the file of Station House Officer, Pitlam Police Station, Kamarr:ddy District, are hereby quashed. The petitioner- accused is at liberty to file appropriate application before 5 the learned Court below for return of seized property. On such application being fiIed, the learned Court below is directed to release the seized property to the petitioner on proper acknowledgment. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if afly, shall stand closed. SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Note: That the Date of order in the Cause title and Docket sheet of Crlp No.16339 ot 2024 is wrongly shown as 09-12-2024 and the is suomotu corrected as 09-01-2025. This order shall substitute - - The ealier order which wai Dispatched on 17-01 -2OZS. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 sEcTtoN oFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Banswada 2. The station House officer, piflam ps, Kamareddy District 3' Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Bala Murali y, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies VA/psl o. ;t;rlk'-'- ' l HIGH COURT DATED t09t12t2024 09t0u2025 I t AMENDED ORDER CRLP.No.16339 ot 2024 'i) t. -) <,:. :1 * 2t lrN ?$2[ G) Ir * ALLOWING THE CRLP 06