Criminal Petition No. 1090 of 2024 · The High Court · 2025

Order

This criminal petition has been fired by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking to quash the proceedings in F.1.R.No.1198 of 2o2s of Raidurgam police station for the offences under sections 223, 273 and 2zs of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS) and section 2o(2) of the cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2O03. .

2. Heard Mr. omar A.Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.V.Jithender Rao, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely - implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations, the ingredients of Sections 223, 273 and 275 of t};.e BNS and Section 20(21 of the COTPA Act, are not attracted. He further submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the Common Order, dated O)5.O7.2O21, passed by this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.152 of 2O2O and batch. Learned counsel enclosed the copy of the above said order along with this Criminal Petition.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the above said order which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.l52 of 2O2O and batch, dated O5.O7.2021 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the issue is no more treated as res judicata in view of the orders passed in Criminal Petition No.1090 of 2024.

5. Taking into consideration the above said submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and also the Common Order dated O5.O7.2021, passed by this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.152 of 2O2O and batch, this Court is of the considered view 1J that the proceedings against the petitioners in F.I.R.No.1198 of 2025 of Raidurgam Police station, are liable to be quashed.

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 F.1.R.No.1198 of 2025 of Raidurgam Police station are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if &ry, shatl stand closed. SD/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUry REGISTRAR (? SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, I

1. The Xlll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, RR.District at Rajendranagar. 2. The station House officer, Raidurgam police station, cyberabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.[OUTJ I I a

4. One CC to [V[r. OTUAR A PASHA, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies i HIGH COURT JSR, J =i 09t12t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.16266 ot 2025 c i\ r IrFun 1 'ii'l) -t * Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Allowed @ II IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA 4,T: HYDERABAD

CORAM: * THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN + CRIMINAL PETITION No.l52 OF 2020 & Batch o/o Delivered on: 05-07-2021 Between in Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020: # Mr. Mohd. Jameel Ahmed Vs. Petitioner $ The State of Telangana, rep.by Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad & another Respondents Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed Mr. Gajanand Chakavarthy Mr. K. Surender Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Ms. P. Radhika Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti Ms. C. Sunitha Kumari Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kurnar Mr. S.M. Subhan Ms. N. Arthi Ivlr. Y. Bala Murali Mr. Boggula Raju Mr. S. Chandrasekhar Mr. V. Yadukrishna Sainath Respective learned counsel Learned Public Prosecutor ! For respective Petitionels ^ For Respondents < Gist > Head Note ? Cases Referred l. 2018 AIR (SC) 5348 2. 2016 Cri. L.J. 2401 3. 2019 SCC Online Born ltl57 4. Crl.P. No.373 I of 20ltl & batch. decided on 27.08.2018 5. 2020 (l) ALT(Crl.) 2ls (APHC) 6. r995 (l) SCt277 7 . 201 I (2) Crimes 250 8. 2017 SCC Online Cal 16323 9.2002CrI.L.J.2872 10. 1992 Supp (l) SCC 3-15 I l. 2020 Supreme (AP) 348 I 2. Crinrinal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 13. Crirninal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016 )V KL,J Crl.P. No. I 52 o1 2020 & batch HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.l52. 153. I55. I62 & 5826 OF 2020 AND 3498.

3500. 3509. 3514. 3768. 3879. 4046. 4070. 4077. 4098. 4099. 4100. 4102. 41 10. 4t 19, 4 I 40. 4141. 4151. 4157. 417 8. 4 182. 4187. 419 4. 421 6. 4230. 4247. 4249. 425 t. 42s8. 4262. 427 7 . 4361. 4 405. 4 4t 5. 4542. 4612. 46 t 5. 4622. 4632. 4640. 4681.4727.4775 & 4825 0F 2021, COMMON ORDER: All the above Crirninal Petitions are filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners - accused in respective Crimes / Calendar Cases. The details of relevant Crirnes / Calendar Cases, offences alleged, nature of offences etc.. are mentioned in the following tabular form: Crl.P No. Crirne No. Accused Nurnbcr sl. No. 0l

06. o7 3879/2t 3768t21 217 /20 of PS Marroharabad 33/21 of PS Kadam 78/21 of PS (T) Adilabad 4077 t21 2l/21 of PS Eassoan 4046t21 4098t21 4099t21 4tou2l

08. 4t02t2t

09. 414U21 r0. 4l5t/21 t2.

13. 4t57/21 4t82t2t 4t87t2l l8s/21 of PS (T) Nirmal No.36/21 of PS Koutala No.38/21 of PS Easgoan 45512t of PS Kukatpally 45121 of PS Chiragpally 198/21 of PS Choutuppal l34l2l of PS Chityal (NLG) 7412 I of PS Raghunadhnalem 202121 of PS (T) Mancherial so[e accused accused At&2 accused AI to3 accused accused accused Allo3 accused Al to4 Al&2 accused Ott'ences allegcdly cornmitted 272, 273 IPC & 20 (2) r/rv 7(2) of CoTPA 270 & 273 IPC -do- -do- 270, 273 IPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA 270 &273 tPC 2'to & 273 tPC 336, 273 & rrttt IPC & 59 (i) ol' FSSA 270 &273 tPC &. 20(2) tlw 7(2) of COTPA 27? &273 tPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA 272,273 & i28 rPC&20(l)&7 (3) ofCOTPA 270&273 tPC -do- Nature ofoffence -f ransportation of Amber tobacco Sale of banned tobacco products Sale ofgutka/tobacco illeeallv in sodown Possession ofgutka ;tobacco in pan shop Transportation of orohibited sutka Possession of tobacco Droducts in the house Possession of banned gutka & other tobacco items in nan shon Transportation and sale ol'prohibited tobacco nroducts Transportation of tobacco products Storage oftobacco Droducts for sale Purchase and sale of prohibited obacco products Transportation of banncd tobacco/cutka Possession of banned tobacco oroducts -)b KL,J Crl.P. No.l52 o12020 &batch t4. t5. 4249t21

16. 4251/2t t7

18. 4258/2t t9. 4277/2t

20. 2t 4405/2t 44t5t2t

22. 4542t21 23

24. 46t5t2t 4640t21

25. 468tl2t 61121 of PS II Town Adilabad l0l/21 of PS I Town Adilahad 90/21 of PS I Town Adilabad 9ll21 of PS I Town Adilabad 107/21 of PS I Town Adilabad 16212l of PS Abdullapunnet 202121 of PS I Town Nalsonda 232121 of PS lI fT) Nalsonda 87/21 ol'PS III (T) Kothagudem 225121 of' PS Nirmal Town 89120 of PS Mamada 18612l of PS Pcddavoora

26. 1727 t2t l64i2l of PS Adibatla accused At &2 accused accuscd Al&2 Al toi accused accused At&2 At& l AI A2 A2 27 4775t21

28. 4825t21 234121 of PS I (T) Nalsonda 245121 of PS Khammam (R) Al to -l Al&2 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

188.272,273 & 328 IPC 188,272 & 273 IPC -do- r88, 269, 270, 273 rlw 14 IPC & 3ofEDA&51 (b) oIDMA 270 & 273 tPC -do- r/w 34 IPC 328 r/w 511.272 & 273 tPC 770,272 & 273 IPC & 20 (2) of COTPA

328.272, 273 & I88 IPC 328, 270 & 273 r/w 5l I tPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA Possession ofbanned sutka oroducts Sale ofgutka and tobacco Droducts About to transport noxious gutka and tobacco Droducts Sale olbanned gutka and tobacco oroducts Transportation of gutka and tobacco Droducts Salc of banned tobacco (tambaku) products in Transportation of sutkrtobacco Droducts Possession ofbanned cutka /tobacco Droducts Possession oftobacco products in kirana shop Posscssion of prohibitcd tobacco products for sale Transportation of banned tohacco/sutka nockets Possession ofbanned gutka & tobacco Droducts in kirana shop Transponation of cigarette or other tobacco products without valid license Sale ofgutka & khaini Transportation of banned

30. 153120

31. 155t20

32. t62t20

33. 5826t20

34. 3498/2t

35. 3500/2 l CALENDAR CASES A2 A2 A3 A2 :70. 273 & 188. 420 IPC & 58 ofFSSA 272 & 273 IPC & 59 of FSSA,2006 420, 270 & l7:t tPC & 58 of FSSA 272.273, 336 & 420 rPCr & (2) of l0 (-OTPA Transportation of banned zarda products Salc ofzarda illcgally Transporlation of banned zarda Sale of prohibited gutka and chewing lobacco products Al&2 r88, 270 & 173 tPC Transportation of Amber gutka pockets Al&2 Al to4 420 &. 277 IPC 420 & 273 rPCr & 20 (ii) ol t:otprr :oot Sale ofbanned tobacco and gutka products Transportation of tobacco and sutka nroducts 35 I 5/19 of I-AJMFC, Waransal 2724/19 of XVIt ACMM. Hvd. 3518/19 of I.AJMFC. W aranstl 4737t18 of XI AMM, Sec.bad Special Magistrate of II Class, .lestial 216120 of JFCM, Devarkorrda 963119 of JFCM, Miryalguda (q KL.J CrLP. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch 188,270 & 273 tPC, 20 (2)of COTPA, 3ofEDA& 5l (b) of DMA t88, 270, 273 & 420 tPC & 20 (2) of COTPA ?72 & 273 IPC & 20 (2) rlw 7 (2'1 of COTPA 270 & 273 rPC & 20 (2) rlw 7 (2\ of COTPA 270,2'71,272 & 273 rlw 34 IPC Scc.3 of EDA 272 & 273 IPC & Sec.20 (l), 20 (2) of COTPA 270 & 273 IPC &20 (2) ot'COPTA 188. 272 & 2?3 tPC & 20 (2)&sof COTPA 270 & 271 rPC & 20 (2) oflCOTPA Storage ofbanned gutka and other tobacco products illegally for sale Supply ot'gutka and othcr tobacco products Transportation of Amber tobacco Transportation of pan masala and banned gutka Transportation ofcotton seeds and banned gutka Transporlation of l.anned tobacco and gurka Purchase and sale ofbanned gutka Sale oftobacco products in his shop and disobel,ing the rules imposcd by Govt. in Not.No.505/FSS- t,/2 I,dt.6. 1.2 I Transportation of Amber gutka At &2 Al to5 Alto4 At& 2 accuscd accused At &2 At &2 Jo. Transportation of gutka/pan rnasala AI &2 270 &273 IPC Possession ol tobacco products illegally lbr sale Sole accused At &2 A3 do- -do- do- r/w 34 IPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA Purchase and sale ofprohibitcd guka pockets Possession ofgutka packets at bus stand for sale illegally Transportatiorr of' banned tobacco producrs

36. 452120 of XXV MMC. Ibmhimpatan At &2 37 632119 of XXV il,IMC, Ibrahimpatnam Al to 8 4070t21

39. 4t t0t2t

40. 4t t9/21 4l 4l40t2t

44. 4216/2t

45. 423012t 46 47 436U2t 46t2t2t

48. 49 547121 of PJMFC, Gajwel 509120 of Spl.PCR Mobile Court-cum- JMFC, Adilabad 512120 of Spl.PCR Mobile Court-cum- JMFC, Adilabad STC No.20l21 of IV AMN,I- cum-IV AJCJ, L.B. Nasar 810/21 of IAJMFC, Khammam 6167l2l of XVII ACMM, Nampally 1298/21 of PJMFC, Khammam 829121 of PJMFC, Khammam l08l2l of AJMFC, Asifabad 533120 of AJMFC, Nirmal 622119 of AJMFC, Nirmal 413120 of AJMFC, Nirmal

2. Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthy, Mr. K. Surender, Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Ms. P. Radhika, { KL.J Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti' Ms' C' Sunitha Kumari' Mr' Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Mr. S'M' Subhan' Ms' N' Arthi' Mr' Y' Bala Murali' Mr. Boggula Raju, Mr' S' Chandrasekhar' Mr' V' Yadukrishna Sainath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondents - State

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

4. The main allegations agaiust the petitiorrers - accused are that they were transporting' possessing' storing' selling and purchasing the banned products uiz'' tobacco / tarnbaku / gutka / khaini I zarda/ pan masala respectively' The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections - 188' 270'269'271'272'273'328' 336&420teadwith34and5llofthelndianPenalCode'1860(for short'IPC'); Sections - 20 (l)' 20 (z)and 5 read with 7(2) and 7 (3) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce' Production' Supply and Distribution) Act' 2003 (for short'COTP Act'); Sections - 58and5goftheFoodSafetyandStandardsAct'2006(forshort'FSS Act'); Section - 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act' 1897 (for short 'ED Act') and Section - 51 (b) of the Disaster Management Act' 2005 (for short DS Act) resPectivelY l 6 \b KL.J Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020.& batch

5. The respective leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the above criminal petitions would submit that the contents of complaint / charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused. For the offences under the provisions of FSS Act, only Food Safety Ofticer 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, therefbre, offence under Section - 420 of IPC does not arise. According to them, the contents of complaint / charge sheet are also lacking the ingredients of the offences under Sections - 269,270.271.

272.273,328 and 336 ofIPC. i) According to them, there is no violation of Sections - 20 (l), 20 (2) and 5 read with 7 (2) and 7 (3) of the COTP Act. The Investigating Officers / Complainants without following the proccdure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), have registered the cases for'the offence under Section - I 88 of IPC and laid charge sheet against the accused. Necessary ingredients to attract the provisions of Section - 3 of the ED Act and Section - 5l (b) of the DM Act are lacking in the complaint / charge shcet. ii) With the above said submissions, the respective learned counsel sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crimes / calendar cases. 7 t7 KL,J Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 &batch

6. On thc other hand, learned Public Prosecutor referring to the principle laid down in the State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao v. The State of Maharashtra2 and Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia v. The State of Maharashtra' by the Bombay High Court would submit that police are having power to register cases under various provisions of IPC, COTP Act, ED Act and DM Act. There is no irregularity in registering crimes, seizing material including the vehicles and laying charge sheet against respective accused in the aforesaid crimes / calendar cases. According to him, the accused were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini I zarda / pan tnasala respectively. According to him, thc accused have to face either investigation or trial and prove their innocence, and instead of doing so, they have filed the present criminal petitions under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. which cannot be considered at this stage. i) 'With the above said submissions, learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the above criminal petitions.

7. [n view of the above rival subrnissions, it is apposite to extract the relevant provisions of IPC, COTP Act, FSS Act, ED Act and DM Act, which are as under: 20r 8 ArR (SC) 5348 2016 Cri. L.J.2401 2019 SCC Online Bom 1857 8 p KL,J Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch REL PROVISIONS t ER IPC "188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.-Whoever, knowirrg that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate suclr order, hc is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to takc certain order with certain property in his possession or under his nlanagement, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk ofobstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to orre month or with fine which may L'xtcncl to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or saf'ety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term rvhich may extend to six months, or with fine which may cxtend to one tlrousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.-lt is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. [t is sufficient that he knows of the order rvhich he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces. or is likcly to produce, harm. lllustration An order is promulgated by a public servant law'tully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger ofriot. A has conrmitted the offence defined in this section." "269. Negligent act likely to spread infectlon of disease dangerous to life.-Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act rvhich is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to bc, likely' to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to lif'e, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description lbr a term which may extend to six months, or with fine. or with both." "270. il{alignant act tikely to spread infection of disease dangerous to lit'e.-Whoever malignantly does any act which 9 t1 KL,,I Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 & batch is, and which 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 term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." "271. Disobedience to quarantine rule.-Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule rnade and prornulgated by the Government for putting any vessel into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessels, or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." "272. Addteration of tbod or drink intended lbr sale.- Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likcly that the sarne will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description fbr a term which may cxtend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." "273. Sale of noxious food or drink.-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 nox- ious 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." "328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.-Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefoing, 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 l0f KI,.J Crl.P. No.l52 of2020 & batch either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." "336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others.- Whoever does any act so rashly or ncgligently as to endanger human lit-e crr thc personal safety of others, shall be punished rvith imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three rnonths, or with fine which may extend to two lrundred and tifty rupees, or with both." *420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any propefiy to any person, or to nrake. alter or destroy the rvhole or any part of a valuable securitv. or anything rvhich is signed or sealed, and which is capablc ot'being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished rvitlr imprisonment ol either description for a terrn rvhich rnay cxtend to seven years, and shall also be liable to tlrre." "34. Acts done by'several persons in furtherance ofcommon intention.-Whcn a crirninal act is done by several pemons in lurtherance ofthe cornnton intention ofall, each ofsuch persons is liablc for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alonc." "51l. Punishment t'or attempting to commit offences punishable rvith imprisonment for . life or other imprisonment. -\Vhocver attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Codc with imprisonment for life or inrprisonmerrt, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the off'ence, shall, rvhere no express provision is made by this Code flor the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment ol any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case lnay be. one-half of the longest term of imprison- nrent provided fbr that offence, or with such fine as is provided for thc offcuce, or u,ith both." ?) KL.J Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER COTP ACT "5. Prohibition of advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products.{l) No person engaged in, or purported to be engaged in the production, supply or distribution 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 advertisement which directly or indirectly suggests or promotcs the use or consumption ofcigarettes or auy other tobacco products. (2) No person, for any direct or indirect pecuniary benefit, shall- (a) display, cause to display, or permit or authorise to display any advertisernent ofcigarettes or any other tobacco productl or (b) sell or cause to sell, or permit or authorise to sell a film or video tape containing advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (c) distribute, cause to distribute, or permit or authorise to distribute 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) ercct, exhibit, tix or retain upon or over any land, building, rvall, hoarding, frame, post or structure or upon or in any vehicle or shall display in any manner whatsoever in any place any advertisement ofcigarettes or any other tobacco product: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in relation to- (a) an advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product in or on a package containing cigarettes or any other tobacco product; (b) advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product rvhich is displayed at the entrance or inside a warehouse or a shop rvhere cigarettes and any other tobacco products are offercd for distribution or sale. (3) No person, shall. under a contract or otherwise promote or agree to promote the use or consumption 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 anothcr 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, either on the package or r{ KL,J Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 &batch on their label, the specified waming and the nicotine and tar contents, shall in the case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment tbr a term which may extend to two years, or with fine u,hich may extend to flve thousand rupees, or with both, and for the second or subsequent conviction. with imprisonment for a term rvhich may exterrd to fivc years and rvith fine rvhich may extend to tcn 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 warning and the nicotine and tar contents shall in thc case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment lbr a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine rvhich rnay extcnd to onc thousand rupees, or with both, and. tbr thc sccond or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term rvhich may extend to two years and with fine rvhich may extencl to three thousand rupees." "7. Restrictions on trade and comnrcrce in, and production, supply and distribution of cigarettcs and other tobacco products.- (l) No person shall. directly or indirectly, produce, supply or distribute 6 cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by hinr bears thereon, or on its label such specified w'arning including a pictorial warning as may be prescribed. (2) No person shall carry on trade or commeFce in cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package ofcigarettes or an!'othcr tobacco products sold. supplied or distributed by him bears thereon, or on its label. the specitied warning. (3) No person shall impon cigarettes or any other tobacco products for distribution or supply fbr a valuable consideration or tbr salc in India unlcss evcry package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products so imported by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified waming. (4) The specified rvarning shall appear on not less than one of the largest panels ofthe package in rvhich cigarettes or any other t3 * KL..I Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020 & bakh 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 cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced. supplied or distributed by him indicates thereon, or on its label, the nicotine and tar contents on each cigarette or as thc case may be on other tobacco products along with the maximum permissible limits thereofi Provided that the nicotine and tar contents shall not exceed the maximum permissible quantity thereof as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act." RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER F.S.S. Act: "58. Penalty for contraventions for which no specific penalty is provided.-\Mrocver conh?venes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations rnade thereunder, for the contravention of which r.ro ponalty has been separately provided in this Chaptcr, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees." "59. Punishment for unsafe food.-Any person 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 [br human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,- (i) rvhere such lailure or contravention does not result in injury, with irnprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with flne which may extend to one lakh rupees; (ii) where such failure or contravention results in a non-grievous injury. with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with tine which may extend to three lakh rupees; (iii) wtere such failure or contravention results in a grievous injury,, with irnprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and also rvith fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, (iv) where such failure or contravention results in death, with irnprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but u,hich may extend to imprisonment for life and also with tine which shall not bc less than ten lakh rupees." t4 KL,J Crl.P. No. I 52 o1 2020 & batch RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER E.D. ACT: "3. Penalty. Any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860 )." RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER D.M. ACT: "5I. Punishment for obstruction, etc.- ( I ) Whoever, without reasonable cause- ( I ) Whoever, without reasonable cause-x (a) obstructs any officer or employee of t['rc Central Govemment or the State Government, or a person authorised by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the discharge of his tunctions under this Act; or (b) refuses to comply with any dircction givcn by or on behalf of the Central Government or tlre State Government or the National Executive Comnrittee or thc Statc Executive Committee or thc District Authority undcr this Act, shall on conviction be punishable rvith inrprisonrrrcnt f<lr a tcrm which may extend to one year'or u,ith fine, or rvith both. and if such obstruction or retusal tr-r comply u'ith directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thercof, shall <ln conviction be punishable with imprisonment tbr a term rvhich nray extend to two years. notes on clauses Clauscs 5l to 58 (Secs. 5l to 58) seeks to lay down what will constitute an offence in terms of obstruction of the functions under the Act, talse claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds. issuance of false warning, failure of an officer to perform the duty imposed on him under the Act without due permission or lawfirl excuse, or his connivancc at contravention ol' the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide for penaltics for thcse <lffenccs."

8. The /rs involved in the present petitions is no more res integra. A learned Single Judge of the IIigh Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telanganaa had an occasion to deal with the issues involved in the prcsenr criminal petitions. 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 t. crl.P. No.373 I ol20l8 & barch. decitled on 27.0u.2018 t5 ?E i, KL.J Crl.P. No.l52 ol 2D0 & batch in scveral judgments, the learned singlc Judge had framed the issues, which are as under: "l) Whethcr the respondent/ Sub-lnspector of police, is competent to invcstigate into the offence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(l) of FSS Act'] 2) Whethcr the petitioners in all the petitions are found committing any act with malicious intention, with knowledge and reason to believe that such act likely to spread the infection ofany disease dangerous to life? And whether the petitioners selling or offering or exposing 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 or reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink? If so, are they liable to be proceeded lrrr the otl'ence purrishable under Sections 270 and 273 IPC.?''

9. Alter an elaborate discussion and on consideration of various aspects, thc lcarned Singlc Judge has held that the potice cannot take cognizancc of the offence, to investigate into and file charge sheet against the accused therein for the offence punishable undcr Sections - 54 ancl 59 (l) of FSS Act, as they were not empowered uuder the said Act to launch the prosecution, but only Food Safety officer appointed by the Government alone is competent to launch prosecution for those two offences. with the said findings, the lcamcd Single Judgc has quashed the proceedings where the of'fences are under Sections - 54 ar-rd 59 of FSS Act initiated by the police.

10. In the vcry samc judgmcnt, the leamed Single Judge further held that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the 'food' within the definition of Section - 3(i) of the FSS Act and the manufacture, sale or l6 1/b KL,J Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020 & barch exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is governed by the provisions of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the provisions of IPC. The respondents - police are incompetent to investigate the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 ( I ) of the FSS Act and allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the statements do not disclose the commission of the offence punishabte under Section - 273 of IPC since transportation of noxious food is not included under Section - 273 of IPC. The act done by thc accused rhercin i.e., transportation of khaini and cherving 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 consunled by human being, it would cerrainly causc damage to the hcalth. Therefore, transportation of khaini or cherving tobacco by itserf is not an offence under Section - 270 of IPC. Pan Masala is not a tobacco product to fall within the purview of COTP Act. Therefore, the provisions of the corP Act have no application. thereby registration of crime on the ground of violation of Sections - 7 (tl (2) (3) (5) and Section - 26 of COTP Act is an illegaliry. Thc learncd Single Judge further held that registration of cases for the offcncc under Section - 20 (2) read with 7 (2) of COTP Acr is illegal. With rhe said findings, the learned Single Judge has quashed the crimcs and calendar cases in the said judgment. l7 ?.4 KI,,.I Ct'L.P. No.l 52 oJ 2020 & batch I l. 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 Kerala6, Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr, M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., v. State of U.P.7, Sanjay Anjay Stores v. Union of Indias, Boop Singh Tyagi v. Statee, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalr0 and Chidurala Shyamsubdero, thc leamed Single Judge has quashed the FIRs i Calendar Cases. Thc learned Singlc Judge referring to the law laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdcra hcld that despite the said authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues. The said judgment attained finality. Even theu, the police are registering cases against accused on the very same allegations for the very same offences. i) Referring to the provisions of Sections - 153, 188,269,270, 271,272,273,284,328, 353 of [PC, the learned Judge in Sri Jaganath Enterprisest held that the offences registered under the said Sections are not maintainable. It further held that the provisions of the COTP Act can only be prcssed into scrvice in the limited '. zozo (l ) ALT (crr.) 2ls (APuc) u. rss5 (r) sct277 '. zotl (z) Crimes l-50 8. 2017 scc online Cal 16323 n. 2oo2 crl.t..:. zgtz "'. lg92 Supp (l) sCC 315 l8 KL.J CrLP. No.l52 of 2020 &batch clrcumstances only where there is violation of sections 4,5,6,7 andl0 of the COTp Act. By referring to the principle laid down by the Apex court in Bhajan Larr. an<I M/s. pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd.7, the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings in various crimes / calendar cases. l2' Another rearned Singre Judge of the High court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in v. Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradeshlr had arso an occasion to dcar with the said issue and agreecl with the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubder{.

13. In Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr, the Apex Court u,hile dealing with legarity of the order passed by the Bornbay High court in a batch of criminal writ petitions and crirninar applications, wrrich were filed challenging the registration of FIRs for the offbnces under Sections - 188, 272,273 and 32g oflpc and Sections - 26 and 30 of the FSS Act where there is an aregation of transportation and sare of Gutka / Pan Masala etc., held that the judgment of Bombay High court is contrary to the provisions of the Act and law laid down by it. with the said finding, the Apex court rernitted trre matter to the Bombay High court for fresh consideration .n the issue that whether the aforesaid offences are made out in the FlRs, which are subjcct matter of the cases pending before the Bombay High Court. ". 2020 Sup."nrc (Ap) 34tl l9 KL..I a"L P. No.l 52 of 2020 & batch 4

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 vtz.,tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini I zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. In Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the leamed Single observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section - 270 of IPC and that manufacturing of pan masala is not included in Section - 273 of IPC and, therefore, the same is not an offence since it is not a noxious food. The learned Singlc 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 :rre consumed by human being. it would certainly cause damage to the health. Therefore. transportation of khaini . or chewing tobacco is not by itself is not an offence under Section - 270 of IPC and it would fall within Section 270 of IPC."

15. Section - 272 of IPC makes punishable an offence by a person, who adulterates any article of food or drink. Therefore, the said section would only come into play if food or drink is adulterated. There is no definition of 'adulteration' in IPC. The definition of 'adulterant' is found in the provisions of the FSS Act. Section - 3 (l) 20 /o KL.J Crl.P. No I 52 o1 2020 & hatch (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulterant' which means a material which could make the 'food' unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded. According to Section - 272 of IPC, if a material is used to make the food unsafe/sub-standard or mis-branded, then only the offence would be attracted. Whereas, as discussed supra, the allegation in the present batch of cases is with regard to transportation, possession. storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. Therefbre, according to this court, the said allegation does not thll within the anrbit of Section - 272 of IPC. Therefore, I agree with the principle laid down by the leamed single Judges of the High court of Andhra Pradesh in chidurala shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raorr.

16. In Joseph Kurian6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for Section - 272 rPC to be attracted, the foflowing should bc present. (l) That the article involved was food and drink meant to be consumed by live persons; (2) that the accused adulteratcd it and the adulteration rendered it noxious as a 'food or drink'; (3) that the accused knew at the time of adulteration that he would sell the article as lbod or drink and knew that such article cannot be sold as food or drink. The Hon'ble Supreme court clearly herd that the offence is completed on the introduction of the adulterant. 'Adulterant' would mean that a material which is mixed to make the 'footl' unsafe or drink unsafe. [n the present case on hand, tobacco is not a food or E 2t KL.J Crl.P. No. I 5J of 2020 & batch drink and what is stated to be mixed in it is not clearly established by any cogent material as an 'adulterant' for the offence under Section - 272IPC to be pressed into service.

17. As far as Section - 328 of IPC is concemed, in the same judgment it was held as follows: "10. In order to prove offence under Section 328 the prosecution is required to prove that the substance in question was a poison, or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug etc, that the accused administered the substance to the complainant or caused thc complainant to take such substance. that he did so with intent to causc hurt or knowing it to be likely 19 that hc would thercby cause hurt, or with the intention to commit or tacilitate the commission of an otfence. It is, therefore, essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused was directly responsible for administering poison etc. 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 sale of a noxious flood 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 bccome noxious., or is in a state unfit for fbod 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 applics to food or drink only. As held in Sri Jaganath Enterprisess, the word 'noxious' is not defined in u KI,.J Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch IPC or in FSS Act. As per the dictionary meaning, the word 'noxious' is harn-rfuI, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As stated above, the allegation in the entire batch of present criminal petitions is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz.,tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini lzarda lpan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section - 273 of IPC.

19. As far as section - 188 IPC is concerned, as per the settlcd 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 knowledge about the order directing him to abstain from the act; he must disobey the said order with the knowledge; and such disobedience of the duly promulgated order should cause a danger to the human life etc. In Boop Singh Tyagie a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court hetd that right to promulgate the ordinance/order is also an issue which is being raised, because under the FSS Act, the Commissioner of Food Safety alone has the authority to pass the orders only if the article of 'food' can causes danger or is injurious to health. 23 F KL..I Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 &batch

20. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorl2 while dealing with the offences under Sections - t88 and 283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under: "5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at 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 30 of the Police Act, 186l could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 186l and is violated, Section 195 (l) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the cotnplaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concerned or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(lXa) of Code 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 otherc is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of lndian Penal Code and is not an '2. Crirrrinal Pctition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 21g KL.J CrLP. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot bc considcred to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable undcr Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (l) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due to its unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to f'ail, though the l" accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Pctition."

21. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari Districtr3, u'herein by relying on various judgments including N.T' Rama Raor2 and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lalr0 more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that rr. Crinrinal Petition No.l524u of20l6, decided on 26-10.2016 25 s{ Kt-..t Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 &batch where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the 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 further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - I 55 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (l) (a) of Cr.P.C.

22. Vide Notification No.50I/FSS-l/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 manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation and sale of gutka / pan masala. which contains tobacco and nicotine, as ingredients and chewing tobacco products, like chap tobacco, pure tobacco, khaiui, kharra. scented tobacco / flavoured tobacco or by whatever name locally it is called packed in sachets / pouches I package in the entire Stage of Telangana under FSS Act, 2006. It is for one year. Vide Notification No.505/FSS-112021, dated 06.01 .2021, the same was cxtended for one more year. As per the information furnished and instructions received, several writ petitions were filed challenging the said 4L KL,J Crl.P. No. I 52 ol 2020 & batch Notifications before this court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme court. A Division Bench of this court declined to entertain some writ petitions on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme court seized of the said issue. It is also rele'ant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme court remanded back the matter to this court. Therefore, such a notification can only be issued for emergency situations and for prohibiting the distribution and sale of any articre of a food cannot be lost sight of. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the above judgments including the judgments in chidurara Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and v. Nagesu,ara Raott. According to this court, Section - 188 of IPC will nor attract to the allegations leveled against thc petitioners hcrcin in this batch of criminal petitions.

23. As far as Section - 32g of tpc is concerned, it deals with causing hurt by lneans of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence. As per the said provision, whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any 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 likery 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, irrtoxicating etc., with intent to cause hurt to such person or rvith intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will 27 KL,J Ct'|.P. No.l52 of 2020 &batch thereby cause hurt. As stated above, the allegations in the entire batch of criminal petitions are lacking. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaints I 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 life or personal safety of others, and as per which, whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with impris- onment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with tine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both. [n the complaints / charge sheets, there is no such allegation of rash and negligent act which endangers human life or personal safety of others. Therefore, according to 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 of tPC is concerned, it deals with negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life, and as per which, whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act 28 s6 KL,J Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch 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 irnprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. But, a perusa[ of the contents of complaints / charge sheets in the present batch of cases, such ingredients are lacking and, thercfore, Section - 269 of tPC does not arise in the present batch ofcases.

27. In view of the above said discussion, according to this Court, transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of tobacco products are not totally banned in the State of Telangana and also in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sections - 269, 270, 271, 272 and 273, 328, 336 and -{20 of IPC are attracted to the cases in this batch.

28. As far as the offences under FSS Act is concerned, as already discussed above, in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the learned Single Judge following 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 punisrhablc under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) ol'the FSS Act, investigating inro rhe offences along with other offences under the provisions of thc IPC. It was further held that filing charge sheet is a grave illegalitl,, as the Food Safety Officer alone is competent to investigate and to fite charge sheet following the Rules laid down under Sections - 4l and 42 of FSS Act. In the present casc. the police have registercd the crime for the offences 29 s1 KL,J Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 &batch under Sections - 188,270 and273 of IPC. Therefore, in the present batch of cases, entertaining the complaints / filing the charge sheets by the police is contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera.

29. With regard to the offences under COTP Act, it is relevant to mention the objects and the reasons of the said Act itself clearly state that the act is meant to prohibit the advertisement of, and to provide for the regulation of trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, cigarettes and other tobacco products and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. A reading of the said objects of the said Act would reveal that a total ban of tobacco products was not envisaged by the said Act. The Parliament merely felt it expedient to control the advertisement and sale of tobacco products. As noted earlier in the order, Section - 3 (p) of the COTP Act and the schedulc therein define tobacco products. Pan masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the definition of tobacco products. Section - 5 of the COTP Act'deals with prohibition of advertisement of cigarette and other tobacco products only. No person, who is engaged in the production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or other products shall advertise the same. Similarly, no person having the control over a medium can advertise cigarettes or tobacco products, and no person shall be a part ofany advertisement.

30. Section - 7 of the COTP Act deals with the imposition of restriction on the sale, trade, commerce of tobacco products unless 30 KL'J Crt'P No t 52 of 2o2o & batch \D every package of cigarette or tobacco product contains a specifled 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'

31. A reading of this Act' particularly Sections - 4' 5'6 andT clearly shows that there is no general ban or gencral prohibition on the manufacture/sale of tobacco products' 22Whatis baned is merely the sale of these products to a person' who is belorv the age of 18 years andinanareawithirrl00yardsofaneducationalinstitutiorr.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 abovc said allegations of transportation' possession' storage' sale :rnd purchase of bannecl tobacco products will not attract the offence under Section -7 of the COTP Act.

32. As far as Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act is concerned' as stated above, the allegations against the petitioner in respective complaints I chargesheets are that they were transporting' possessing' storing, selling and purchasing the banned tobacco products to the customers illegally in order to gain wrongful profits' In view of the said allegation, it is apt to refer to Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act 3l 'q) KL.J Crl.P. No.l52 of2020 &batch for better appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question, and the same is as under: *20. Punishment for failure to give specilied warning and nicotine and tar contents.- (t).. (2) Any pemon who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their labcl, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupecs, or with both, and. for the second or subscquent conviction. with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees."

33. Thus, Section - 20 of coTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. But, in the complaints / charge sheets, there is no allegation against the pctitioners that they were carrying on trade 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 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 warning. Thus, registering the crimes for the said offence against the petitioners is not only contrary to Section - 20 (2) of COTP Act, but also contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdero. In view of the same, the offence under secrion - 20 (2) of coTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree with the 32 ,{ KL.J Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch principle laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raoll.

34. For the foregoing discussion and the authoritative principle of law, Criminal Petition Nos. 3768, 3879, 4046, 4077, 4098, 4099, 4loo, 4102, 4141, 4151, 4157, 4182, 4187 , 4247 , 4249, 4251, 4258, 4262, 4277, 4405, 4415, 4542, 4615, 4640, 4681, 4727, 4775 and 4825 of 2021 are allowed quashing the proceedings against thc 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 / tnvestigating Offircers are hereby directed to return the seized property / vehicles on proper identification and verification of ownership under due acknowledgment.

35. Further, Criminal Petition Nos. 152, 153, 155, 162 & 5826 of 2020,3498, 3500, 3509, 3514, 4070,.4110, 4119, 4140, 4178, 4194, 4216, 4230, 4361, 4612, 4622 and 4632 of 2021 arc also allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners therein in the respective Calendar Cases mentioned therein. Since the proceedings are quashed, the respective petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate applications before the concerned Magistrate for return of the seized property / vehicle and the Magistrate shall consider the same in accordancc with law. 5J\z Kt...t Crl.P. No. I 52 ol'2020 & batch As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed. osrH JULY,zozt Note: L.R. copy to be markcd. (B/o.) Mgr K. LAKSHMAN, J