IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA vs Petitioner

HIGH COURT JSRJ DATED:1111212025 STAl'f 1 A) CRLP.No.16448 of 2025 C) L) J u"'' \ i c r-rIil ,C ,:-/ CRIMINAL PEITITION IS ALLOWED. ta u'-' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD CORAM: * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN +CRIMINAL PETITION No.152 OF 2020 & Batch 7o Delivered on: 05-07-2021 Between in Crl.P. No.152 of2O20 # Mr. Mohd. Jameel Ahmed Vs Petitioner $ The State of Telangana, rep.by Public Prosecutor High Court ofTelangana, Hyderabacl & 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. Arthi Mr. Y. Bala Murali Mr. Boggula Raju Mr. S. Chandrasekhar Mr. V. Yadukrishna Sainath Respective leamed counsel Learned Public Prosecutor ! For respective Petitioners ^ For Respondents < Gist > Head Note ? Cases Referred

1. 20r8 AtR (SC) s348 2. 2016 Cr.. L.J. 2401 3. 2019 SCC Online Bom t857 4. Crl.P. No.373l of20l8 & batch, decided on 27 08 2018 s. 2020(l) ALT(Crt)215 (APHC) 6. 1995 (t) SCt 277 7. 201 t (2) Crimes 250 E. 2017 SCC Online Cal 16323 9. 2002Cr\.L.r.2872 lo 1997 Suno ( t) SCC 335 2 ( , P i\'o I 5) of ](Da &tratch KT-.J HON'BLE SRI JUSI'ICE K. LAKSHi tAN CRIMIN AL PETITION Nos.152 153 15s 162 & 5826 ( ? 2020 AN 3500. 3s 09.3 5t4. 3768. 3879.4 046. 4070.4 077. 4098.409' 4100 4102 4119.414 0,4 t4t. 415I. 4ts7.4 178. 4182.41 87. 4194.421r 4230 4247 4251,42 58, 4 262. 4277,43 61. 4405. 4415.4 542. 4612.461: 4622 4632 ) ) ). D 3498 4l l0 4249 4640 4681 4727 4775 & 4825 0F 2021. COMM ON ORI) ER: All the above Criminal petitions are file( to quash the proceedings against the petitioners _ accused in re; lccti'e Crirnes / Calendar Cases. The details of relevant Crirr es ,/ Calendar Cases. oflences alleged, nature of offences etc.. a11 melltioned in the following tabular form: SI, No 0l Crl.P No t168/2t 02 03 04 05 06 07 1046/2t 4077i2t 08 4102/2t 09 4I1t /21 Crime No 2l'7/20 of pS Manoharabad l2l of pS Kadam 78/21 ol PS (T) Adilabad 21t21 Eas oan of PS 185/21 o1' pS (T) Ninnal No.36121 of pS Koutala No.38/2 t of pS Easgoan 455/21 of pS Kukatpally 45/21 of pS Chiragpally Accused Number accused accused At &2 accused Al to3 accused accused accused Al to3 l0 4t5t t2I 198/21 of pS Choutu pPal 134/21 of pS Chityat (NLG) accused Al to4 Offences allegedly committed 272, 273 tPC & 20 (2) r/w 7(2) of COTPA 2'10 & 273 IPC -do- -do-. 270, 27i tPC & 20 (2) ofCOTpA 270 & 2T rPc 2',70 & 2?3IPC 336, 273 & r88 IPC & s9 (i) of FSSA 270 & 273 rPC & 20(2) r/w 7(2) of COTPA 272 & 273 rPC & 20 (2) of COTpA 2?2, 273 & 328 rPC&20(t)&7 (3) ofCOTPA Nature ofolfence rirnsfonation oI Amber tobacco iirle of barured tobacco roducts ale of gutkir/tobacco r!Esllt ln odown I'osscssion of gutka 'tobacco in pan shop TraDspofiatlon of rohibited osscssion of tobacco roducts in the house ossession of banned ! rtka & other tobacco Items tn rnsportation and sale c prohibited tobacco roducts lransportatiotr of l()bacco produCt\ (orage of tobacco rroducts for sale ) rchasc and sale of t ohibrted tobacco I 3 accused Al &2 accused accused A1 & 2 Al to3 accused accused At &2 Al&2 AI A2 At to4 AI&2 KL'J Crt.P No t 52 of 2020 & barch -do- -do- Possession of banned roduats Sate of gutka and tobacco About to transPort noxious gutka and tobacco Sate ofbanned gutka and tobacco roducts Transportation of gutka and tobacco t88,2',12.2'73 & ]28 IPC Sale of banned tobacco (tambaku) Producs in r88, 2'12 & 271 IPC -do- 188. 269. 270. 271 r/w l4 IPC & iotEDA&51 ) of DMA 270 & 2'7i IPC -do- r/w i4 tPC 328 /w 511.2'72 & 2',7) IPC 2'.70. 272 & 273 IPC & 20 (2) ol COTPA 328, 212. 273 & 188 tPC 328, 270 & 211 r/w 5t 1 IPC & 20 ofCOTPA 2 Transportation of &a./tobacco roducts Possessiou ofbanned tka /tobacco roducts Possession oftobacco products in kirana shoP Possession of Prohibi ted tobacco roducts for sale Transportation of banne d tobacco/ Possession ofbanncd gutka & tobacco roducts in kirana sho -ransponation of crgarette or other tobacco products wlthout valid Iicensc Sale of gutka & khaini Transportation oIbanned t4 l5 l6 t'l 18 l9 20 2l 424'7 /21 4249121 425tl2l 4258121 4262121 4405121 22 4542121 23 24 25 46t512l 468ll2r 61121 of PS U Town Adilabad fut/2t of PS t Town Adilabad 90/21 of PS I Town Aditabad 9ll21 of PS I Town Adilabad tOZiZt of PS I Town Adilabad 16212l of PS AbduttaPurmet 202121 of PS I Town Nal onda 232/21 ot PS lI N onda 87/21 of PS lll (T) Kothagudem ZZStZt of PS Ninnal Town ggtZO of PS Mamada 18612l of PS Peddavoora 26 4'72'7 tzt 164/21 of PS Adibatla 2'7 47',]5121 ZiqtZt "f PS t Nat 28 4825121 245121 of PS Klammam 29 30 3l t52120 t53120 155120 32 t62120 33 5826120 34 3498121 3515/t9 ot I-AJMFC, Waran al 2724/19 of XVII ACMM, Hvd, 3518/19 of I-AJMFC, Waran al 4737/18 of XI AMM, Sec.bad Special Magistrate of Il Class, r 216120 JFCM, CALEN DAR C ASES A2 A2 A3 A2

270. 273 & t88. 420 IPC & 58 of FSSA 272 & 213 IPC & 59 of FSSA,2OO6 420, 270 & 213 IPC & 58 ofFSSA 2'12,273,336 & 420 lPc & 20 (2) of COTPA Traosportation of banned zarda Products Sale of zarda illegallY Transportation of banncd zarda Sale ofprohibited gutka and chewing tobacco Products At &2 188, 270 & 2',13 IPC Transportation of Amber gutka pockets Al &2 420 & 273 IPC Sale ofbanned tobacco and gutka 36 3509/2t 452,',20 0f XXV MMC, Ibrahimpatao At &2 i5l4i2l 632/19 of xxv MMC, Ibrdhrmparnam Al ro8 l8 4070t2r 39 1t t0/21 40 4t t9t2t 4t 4 t 40,',2 t 42 4 t'78,'2t 43 4t94/21 547/21 of PJMFC, Cal wel 509i20 of Spl.PCR Mobile Court cum- JMFC, Adilabad 512/20 of Spl.PCR Mobilc Court-cum- JMFC. Adilabad STC No.20/21 of IV AMM- cum-[V AJCJ. L,B, NA 810/21 of IAN4FC. Khammam 6167/21 of XVII ACMM, Nampally At &2 Al to5 Al ro4 Ar & 2 accused accused At &2 188, 270 & 273 IPC. 20 (2)of COTPA, 3ofEDA& 5l (b) of DMA t88, 270, 273 &420PC& 20 (2) of COTPA 272 & 2'73 rPC & 20 (2) r/w 7 (2) of COTPA 270 & 273 tPC & 20 (2) r/w 7 (2) of COTPA 2'70, 271, 272 & 273 r/w 34 IPC Sec.3 oIEDA 272 & 273 IPC & Sec.20 (t), 20 (2) of COTPA 270 & 273 rPC & 20 (2) ofCOPTA 188, 272 & 273 IPC & 20 (2)&5of COTPA 270 & 273 rPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA ( KL,J \. | --: o/ 2!:t) & harcll Stong r ofbanned gutka and other toba( ( ) products illegally for sale Supprl rfgutka and other tobacco products TransD ,rtation of Amber tobacco Transpr natioo ofpan rnasala aod banned gurka Transp,,r ation ofcotton sceds and baued gutka Transp, r ation ofbanned robacco and gutka Purchas, nd sale ofbanned gutka Salc o1 t rbacco products ln his shop a r disobeylng thc rules in.1 rsed by Govt. in Not.No: )5fSS- l/21 .dr.6 l.21 Transpr r rtion ofAmber gutka 44 45 46 4230/2t 47 46t2/2t 48 4622t2t 49 4632/2t 1298121 of PJMFC, k'hammam 829/2t of PJMFC, Khammam 108/2 t AJMFC, Asifabad 533/20 of ,{JMFC. Nirmal 622i19 of AJMTC. Ninnal 413t20 of AJMFC, Nirmal At &2 -do- At &2 2't0 &273 tPC Sole accused At &2 A] -do do- -do- r/w 34 tPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA Transl ( tation of gutka/pan masala Possessr r oftobacco products i I gally for sale Purchase i rd sale ofprohibited I ka pockets Possession ( f gutka packets at bus stanr rr sale illegally Transportati rn of banned krbacco )roducts !ffi 'I I 5 KL.J Crl.P No.l5) of 1(D0 & barch 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, leamed 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 against the petitioners - accused are that they were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku I gutka / khaini / zarda I pan masala respectively. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections - 188,270,269,271,272,273,328, 336 & 420 read with 34 and 51 I of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (lor short 'lPC'); Sections - 20 (l),20 (2) and 5 read with'7(2) and 7 (3) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'COTP Act'); Sections - 58 and 59 ofthe Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short'FSS Act'); Section - 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (for short 'ED Act;) and Section - 51 (b) of the Disaster Management Act,2005 (for I 6 KL,J (r t -Yo.|52 of 2020 & barch

5. The respective learned counsel appearing rn behalf of the petitioners in the above criminal petitions would tubmit that the contents of complaint I charge sheet lacks the trl redients of the offences alteged against the accused. For the ofi nces under the provisions of FSS Act, only Food Safety Officer is I aving power to initiate criminal proceedings against accused and tlt police are not having any power to register a case for the off,: rces under the provisions of FSS Act. There is no inducement by tlit: tetitioners and, therelore, offence undcr Section 420 of IPC c tes not arise. According to them, the contents of complaint / charlrr sheet are also lacking the ingredients ofthe offences under Sections- 269,270,271, 212,273,32tJ and 336 oftPC i) According to them, there is no violation of S::tions - 20 (l), 20 (2) and 5 read u.ith 7 (2) and 7 (3) of the CIO I-P Act. The Investigating Officers / Complainants without following the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, r73 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), have registered the cases for the offence tr rder Section - 188 of IPC and laid charge sheet against the accus,: l. Necessary ingredients to attract the provisions of Section - 3 of t r : ED Act and Section - 5l (b) of the DM Act are lacking in the corrl laint / charge sheet. ii) \X/irL the ohn',- caid crrhmiccinnq the resnr -fi.rr,. lcernad 7 KL.,T Crl.P: No.l52 of2020 & batch

6. On the other hand, leamed 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 Maharashtra3 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 inctuding the vehicles and laying charge sheet against respective accused in the aforesaid crimes I calendar cases' According to him, the accused were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned products viz', tobacco / tambaku I gutka I khaini / zarda I pan masala respectively According to him, the accused have to face either investigation or trial and prove their innocence, and instead of doing so, they have f,rled 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. 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: 8 ('r KL,J \o 152 of20)0 & batch RELEVANT PROVIS IONS UNDER TPC "188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated ry public knowing that, by an order prorr rlgated by servant. -Whocvcr, a public servant lawfully ernpowered to promulgate uch order' he is directed to abstain fiom a certain act' or to t ke certain order with certain property in his possession o under his management. disobeys such direction' shall if such disobetlience causes or tends to cause obstruction' a I oyallce or injury, or risk of ohstmctioll, annoyance or injury' t( :ny person lawfully employed, be punished with simple impnst r ment fbr a rnay extend to one month or rvith fine ' 'hich may cxtcnd to tu,o hundred nrpees- or with both: I r I if such disobedience causes or trcnds to cause danger to l- rman life' hcalth or safety, or causes or tonds to cause a riot or I fray' shall be punished rvith imprisonment of either descnption lor a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which r Lay extend "r'hich to one thousand rupees, or rvith both Explanation. [t is not necessary that the offer ler should intcnd to producc harm, or contemplate his disolr dience as likcly to produce harm. lt is sufficient that he knows c'the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience pro(l ces' or is likely to produce, harm. lllustration An order is promulgated by a pu: ic sen'ant lawfully empowerecl to promulgate such order' dire c ing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certair street A knowingly disobeys thc order, and thereby causes da I 1er ofriot' A has committed the offe nce defined in this section ' "269. Ncgligcnt act likely to spread infection ' dangerous to life .-Whoever unlarvfully or negli ; any act rvhich is, ar1d which he knows or has reason t:: be, likely to spread the inlection of any disease d r life , shall be punished with imprisonment of either r for a term which may extend to six months, or with 1i r.nth " '1,r.: ..r,. f diseasc ntly does believe to gerous to escnption e, or with 9 KI-.1 Crl.P. No 152 of2020 & batch is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to tife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may cxtend to two years, or with fine, or with both." ,.271. Disobedience to quarantine rule.-Whoevcr knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Govemment for putting any vessel into a state ofquarantine, 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 whorc an inlcctious disease prevails and other places, shall be punished with imprisonmcnt of either descnption for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." .'272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.- Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand mpees, 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 sh,rpefuing, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to l0 KL,J (r t \o.)52 of2020 &batch either description for a term which may extend to te t years, and shall also be liable to fine." "336. r\ct endangering life or personal safetl' of others.- Whocver does any act so rashly or negligently as t cndanger human lile or the personal safcty of others, shall 1,r punished with imprisonment of either description for a tcmr r hich ntay extend to three months, or with fine which may ex r nd to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both." "420. (lheating and dishoncstl) inducing dc iverr of properh,.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishones'l r induces the pcrson deceived to deliver any property to any pi son, or to make, alter or destroy the wholc or any part of i valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, at r rvhich is capable ol being converted into a valuable secuntl shall be punished rvith imprisonment of either description I r a term which rnay extend to sevcn ycars, and shall also l,t liablc to hne." "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance r,l common intcntion.--W1ren a criminal act is done by several ersons in furtherance of the common inte ntion of all, eacli of sr r h persons is liablc lirr that act in the same manner as if it $'er rlonc by him alonc." "51 l. Punishment for attempting to commit punishable Mth imprisonment for life r imprisonment.-Whoever attempts to commit i r punishable by this Code with imprisonment fi,; o ffen ces ' other oll'ence lifc or imprisonrnent, or to cause such an offence to be conrrr tted. and in such attempt does any act towards the cornmiss i ,n of thc offence, slrall, where no express provision is made hr for the punishment of such attempt, be puni ;l imprisonment of any description provided for the off: his (lode cd rvith rcc, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisorun: rt lor life or, as thc casc may be, one-half of the longest term o1' mprison- KL.J Crl.P. No.l 52 of2020 & batch RELEVANT PROVTSIONS UNDER CO TP ACT ..5. prohibition of advertiscment of cigarettes and other tobacco products.{1) No person engaged in, or purported to be engaged in the production, supply or distribution ofcigarettes 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 promotes the use or consumption of cigarcttes or any other tobacco products. (2) No person, fbr any dircct or indirect pecuniary benefit. (a) display, cause to display, or permit or authorise to display any advertisement ofcigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (b) sell or cause to sell, or permit or authorise to sell a film or video tape containing advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (c) distribute, cause to distnbute, or permit or authorise to distribute to the public any leaflet, hand-bill or document which is or which contains an advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (d) erect, exhibit, fix or retain upon or over any land, building, wall, hoarding, frame, post or struchlre or upon or in any vehicG or shall display in any manner whatsoever in any piace any advertisement ofcigarettes or any other tobacco produit: 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 lobacco product; (b) advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product which is displayed at the entrance or inside a warehouse.rr a shop where cigarettes and any other tobacco products are offered 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 exchangc lor a sponsorship, gift, prize or scholarship given or agteed to be given by another person." t2 KL,J C,l.t No.l.i2 of2020 & bttch on their label, the specified waming and the nicot r e and tar contents, shall in the case of first corrviction be puni J able with imprisonrnent for a term which may extend to two yc r s, or with fine which may extend to fir,e thousand rupees, or''ith both, and for the second or subsequent conviction, with im r isonment for a tem which may extend to five years and with I nc which may extend to ten thousand rupees. (2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettos r tobacco products which do not contain either on the paokage c - on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tirr contents shall in the case of first conviction be punisl i .rlc rvith imprisonmcnt for a tcrm, which may extcnd to one vrl , or rvith fine wl.rrch may extend to one thousand rupees, or r. ith both, and, for the second or subsequent convict t n, rvith imprisonment for a term which may extcnd to trr,o cars and with fine which may exteod to three thousand rupees.' "7. Restrictions on trade and commercc in, and prr supply and distribution of cigarettes and othe,' products.- (l) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, : distributc 6 cigarettes or any other tobacco produr every package of cigarettes or any othcr tobaccr, duction, tobacco rpply or s unless rroducts produced, supplied or distributed by him bcars thereor . or on its label such specified waming including a pictorial rr i ning as may be prescribed. (2) No pcrson shall carry on trade or commerce in cir i rottes or any other tobacco products unless every package of ciilr rettcs or any other tobacco products sold, supplied or distributi r by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified waming. (3) No person shall import cigarettes or any othe tobacco products fbr distnbution or supply for a valuable con; lcraLion or for sale in India unless every package of cigarett: or any other tobacco products so imported by him bears thertr r, or on its label, the specified waming. l3 KL,J Crl.P No I 52 of 2D0 & batch tobacco products have been packed for distribution, salc or supply for a valuablc consideration. (5) No person shall, directly or induectly, produce, supply or distribute cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every packagc 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 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 thereof as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act." RELEVA NT PROVISIONS UNDER F.S.S. Act: "58. Penalty for contraventions for which no specific penalty is provided.-Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thercunder, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided in this Chapter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees." "59. Punishment for unsafc food.-Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufachrres for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption *'hich is unsafe, shall be punishable,- (i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with frne 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 fine which may extend to three lakh rupees; (iii) where such failure or contravention results in a grievous injury, with imprisonment for a tcrm which may extend to six years and also with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees; (iv) where such failure or contravention results in death- with KL,J ( ,' -\'o I i) o[:t):t) .1 butch RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER E.D. ACT "3. Penalty. Any person disobeying any regulat;c r or ordcr made under this Act shall be deemed to have cor rmitted an offence punishable under section 188 of the Indran enal Code (as of 1860 )." RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER D.M. ACT: "51. Punishmcnt for obstruction, etc.- (l) Whoever, rvithout reasonable cause- (l) Whoe., r, without reasonable cause- i' (a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central ( i rvenrment or the State Covemment, or a person authorised bv th: National Authority or State Authority or District Autho i r in the discharge of his funcrions under rhis Act; or (b) refuses to comply with any direction given b_v or on behalf of the Central Govemment or the State Governn t rt or thc National Executive Committee or thc State lxecutive Comrnittce or the District Authority under this Ar t shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a re m r.vhicli may extend to one year or with fine, or with both. ru d if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions resulr. in loss oi. lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conv ctioll be punishable with imprisonment for a term which mir\ lxtend to two years. notes on clauses Clauses 5l to 5g 1seci. ;l to SS) seeks to lay down what will constitute an ofloncc ir terms of obstruction of the functions under the Act, false clain br reiicf, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuanr:t of false waming, failure of an officer to perform the duty irn rosed on him under the Act without due permission or lawi'ul e :cuse. or his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide for penalties for these offenc,:r .,'

8. The /rs involved in the present petitions i ; no rnore res integro- A learned Single Judge of the High courr c I Judicature at Hyderabad lor the State ofTelangana and the State ol z ndhra pradesh in chidurala Shyamsubder v. state of reranganaa rr Ld an occasion to deal with the issues involved in the present crirr inar petitions. After referring ro various provisions of Ipc, FSS Act, rrorp Act ancl / l5 KL,J Crl P. No.l52 o12020 &.botch in several judgments, the learned Single Judge had framed the issues' which are as under: . ,'l) Whether the respondenU Sub-[nspector of Police' is competent to investigate into the oflence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(l) of FSS Act? 2) Whether the petitioners in att the petitions are found committing any act with maiicious intention' with knowledge and reason to believe that such act likety to spread the infection of any discase dangerous to life? And whether the petitioners sclling 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 rcason to believe that thesameisnoxiousasfoodordrink?Ifso'arctheyliabletobe proceeded for the offcncc punishable under Sections 27O and 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 flle charge sheet against the accused therein for the oflence punishable underSections-54and59(1)ofFSSAct,aStheywerenot empowered under the said Act to launch the prosecution' but only FoodSafefyofficerappointedbytheGovemmentaloneiscompetent tolaunchprosecutionforthosetwooffences.withthesaidfindings, the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings where the offencesareunderSections-54and5gofFsSActinitiatedbythe police' t 0. In the very same iudsment. the leamed Si nele Judse further KL,J ( i ':\lt t5lot20t0&batch exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is governed bv re provisions of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the provis ons of IpC. The respondents - police are incompetent to investic rte the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) ol-rr: FSS Act and allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the sr rlements do not disclose the commission of the offence punishabre ur r er Section - 273 ol IPC since transportation of noxious food is noL included under Section - 273 of IpC. The act done by the accrr cd therein i.e.. transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco thouc r dangerous to human life, it would not spread or infect or causc tny disease on accouut of transpoftation and if those products art consurned by human being, it would certainly cause damage o the health. Therelbre, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacc r by itself is not an olfence under Section - 210 of IpC. pan Masala ir nor a tobacco product to fall within the purview of corp Act. rherefore, the provisions of the COTp Act have no application, therr ry registration of crime on the ground of violation of Sections _ 7 (1 2) 13) (5) and Section -26 of COTp Act is an illegality. The leamcr Single Judge further held that registration of cases for the offence , rder Section _ 20 (2) readwithT (2) of COTp Act is illegal. With th: said findings, the learned Single Judge has quashed the crimes and czrl rndar cases in the said judgment. i E*ffit*-__ I t7 KL,J Crl.P. No 1 52 o/ 2020 & hotch 1 1. In Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasadhi Tripati Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradeshs, a learned 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 flassan Sayyed Subhanr, M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., v. State o[ U.P.7, Sanjay Anjay Stores v. Union of India8, Boop Singh Tyagi v. Statee, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalr0 and Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the learned Single Judge has quashed the FIRs / Calendar Cases. The learned Single Judge referring to the law laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdero held that despite the said 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 for the very same offences. i) Referring to the provisions of Sections - 153, 188, 269,270, 271,272,273,284,328,353 of IPC, the leamed Judge in Sri Jaganath Enterprisess 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 pressed into service in the limited ffiii+.'. l8 KL.J C t D No.l5) of2020 & batch cr rcumstances only where there is violatio r of Sections 4, 5,6,7 and t0 of the COTP Act. By referring ro he principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lalro and M/ . pepsico India Iloldings (Pvt) Ltd.7, the leamed Single Judge ras quashed the proccedings in various crimes / calendar cases. [2. Another learned Single Judge of the Hig] lourt of Andhra Pradcsh at Amaravati in V. Nageswara Rao v. li ate of Andhra Pradeshrr had also an occasion to deal with the saic ssue and agrecd ',vith the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsub lera.

13. In Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr, the ,\ tex Court while dealing with lceality of the order passed by the Bomt,r y High Court in a batch ol crirninal writ petitions and criminal ap, ications, which were filed challenging the registration olFIRs for thr offences under Sections - 188,272,213 and 328 of IpC and Secrion - 26 and 30 of the FSS Act where there is an allegation of transpofla ion and sale of Gutka / Pan Masala etc., held that the judgment cf Bombay High Court is contrary to the provisions of the Act and law aid down by it. With the said finding, the Apex Court remitted thr matter to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration on the is; Le that whether the aforesaid offences are made out in the FIRs, rvt ch are subject matter of the cases pending before the Bombay High (,r urt. l9 KL.J Crl.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 allegations 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 learned Singte observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section - 270 ol 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 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 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. 20 KL'J Crt.P I r 152 of 2020 & barch (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulterant' which me lns a material whichcouldmakethe.food'unsafeorsub-standardc:mis-branded. Accorcling to Section - 212 of IPC, if a material is u; rd to make the food unsafe/sub-standard or mis-branded, then only the offence would be attracted' Whereas, aS discussed supra, the al egation in the present batch of cases is with regard to transportali rn' possession' storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz'' tol rcco / tambaku / gutka / khaini I zatda / pan masala etc', respectirt ly' Therelore' according to this Court. the said allegation does not lall within the ambit of Section - 272 ol IPC. Therefore, I agree u i 'h the principle laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High ( ourt of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubdero, Sri Jagana I r Enterprisess and V. Nagesrvara Raot l. l6.InJosephKurian6,theHon'blesuprem':CotLrtheldthat for Section - 272IPC to be attracted, the following sl luld be present' ( l ) That the article involved was food and drin : meant to be consumed by live persons; (2) that the accused adulr rated it and the adulteration rendered it noxious as a 'food or drir <'; (3) that the accusedknewatthetinreofadulterationthatheu,orL-]sellthearticle as food or drink and knew that such article cannot tt sold as food or drink. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ctearly held thi t the offence is completed on the introduction of the adulterant' 'lr' lulterant' would 2t KL.J Crl.P. No 152 of2020 & 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 _ 272 IPC to be pressed into service.

17. As far as Section - 328 of IPC is concemed, in the same judgment it was held as follows: "10. In order to prove offence under Section 328 the prosecution is required to prove that the substance in question was a poison, or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug etc, that the accused administcred the substance to the complainant or caused the complainant to take such substance, that he did so with intent to cause hurt or knowing it to be likely l9 that he would thereby cause hurt, or with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence. 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 food or drink, and as per which, whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment specified therein. Therefore, if a person offers for sale a "food or drink" any article which has become noxious or is in a state of unfit for "food or drink". Thus, the said section would apply, when an article which has become noxious or which has 22 KL,J No.l52 of2020 & batch Cr IPC or in FSS Act. As per the dictionary meaning, t.r : word 'noxious' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As tated above, the allegation in the entire batch of present criminal retitions is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale .nd purchase of banned products vr., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / klLi ini I zarda Ipan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according t,r this Cour1, the contents of the cornplaint/charge sheet lacks the ingr,: lients of Section - 273 of IPC.

19. As laras section - 188 IPC is concemed. i s per the settled law on the subject, belore an accused is charged, tl-:re must be; an order duly promulgated by the public servant; the put lic servant must have the lawful authority to promulgate the order; the person flouting the same should have knowledge about the order ( irecting him to abstain from the act; he must disobey the said trder with the knowledge; and such disobedience of the duly prc mulgated order should cause a danger to the human life etc. In Boop Singh Tyagie a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that ri5:l t to promulgate the ordinance/order is also an issue which is beinp raised, because under the FSS Act, the Commissioner of Food Safe t r alone has the authority to pass the orders only if the article of '1c od' can causes danger or is injurious to health. t,/ 23 KL,J Ctt.P. No.l52 o12020 & bdtch 20- In N.T. Rama Rao v' The State of A.P', rep. by Public prosecutorl2 while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, the leamed Single Judge of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh heid as under: "5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at tlree 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, 1861 could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Potice of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, I 861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concemed or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 ofCode of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was frled by the Sub lnspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code hv the netifioners and others is ohviouslv it! l4 c,1.?. No.t52 of)02A A f*f, independent ol the same. Even ot6: wise, the conduct of public rneeting at three roa ijunctions or obstruction to the traffic could not I ave been considered as causing any danger or ilU! y to any person. In so lar as the obstruction in rrr y,public way is concemed. which can also be c,).ered by Section 2gl of the Indian penal Code, r I , charge sheet cites only one u.itness to speak .,, ()ul the traffic jam caused by the road show. Bu , when the conduct of the public meeting at learl ;rt one I)lace has been pcrnrittcrJ and it the gatil(.r ng lor that puhlic nreeting resulted in any incortrr nience by way of obstructing the traffic, the sarnr ;annot be colsidered to be rvith necessary guilty. n,r ts rca to construe the existence ol an oflence puni hablc under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none ol the olfences alleged c rn be said to have any reasonable basis and in an1 ,iew, the complaint/charge shect being in viojatrr n o1. Section 195 (l) (a) of Cods of Criminal procr:, has to fail. ure, 7) As the cornplaint has lailed due rr. its unsustaina bility, the proceedings in their enli ety have to fail, though the 1., accused al ,rre approached this Court by way of this Crin iral Petition.,,

21. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v The Starr of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., p.S. Eluru Rural, Wr,r t Godavari Districtrr, wherein by relying on various judgments irrr luding N.T. Rama Raor2 and also the guidelines Iaid down by the ,n I ,ex Clourt in ,!,1?.'-: ^] 25 KL,J Crl.P. No.l52 of )020 & batch where there is an express legal bar en$afted in any ofthe provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings andlor 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 _ 4g2 of Cr.p.C. It was also further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technicai defect of obtaining prior permission under Section _ 155 (2)of Cr.p.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purporr of Section _ 195 (l) (a) of Cr.p.C.

22. Vide Norifi cation No.50 t/F SS_t /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, transporlation and sale of gutka / pan masala, which contains tobacco and nicotine, as ingredients and chewing tobacco products. tike chap tobacco, pure tobacco, khaini, 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-1 /2021, dated 06.01.2021, the same was extended for one 26 (:r . . No.l 52 of 2020 & batch Notifications before this Court as well as the Hon'blt Supreme Court. A Division Bench of this Court declined to ellte lain some writ petitions on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Cc urt seized of the said issue. It is also relevant to note that the Hon'b[' Supreme Court remanded back the matter to this Court. Therefore, sr ch a notification can only be issued for emergency situations and frr prohibiting the distribution and sale of any arlicle ofa lood canno. be lost sight of. Therefore,, in view of the law taid down in the a rovc judgments including the judgments in Chidurala Shyamsubdt'r t. Accord in Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raol {, Sri Jaganath 1 to this Courl, Section - 188 of IPC will not attract to the allegation leveled against the petitioners herein in this batch of criminal petitiorL:

23. As far as Section - 328 of IPC is concenr:d, it deals with causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intert to commit an offence. As per the said provision, whoever admini ; ers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupef)'ng, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to ca rse hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the cc mmission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereb) )ause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description f rr a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liabie to 1ne. Therefore, there should be administering poison, intoxicating etc , with intent to 27 KL,J Crt.P. No.l52 of2020 & 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 / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of Section - 328 of IPC.

24. Asfar as Section - 336 of IPC is concerned, it deals with an act endangering lile or personal salety 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 tbr a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty mpees, or with both. In 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 / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of Section - 336 of IPC.

25. As far as Section - 420 ol [PC 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 I charge sheet lack the ingredients of Section - 420 of lPC.

26. As far as Section - 269 of IPC is concerned, it deals with KL,J Crl.P. No. - 1 of 2020 & batch which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to :e' likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life' shall be punished with irnprisonment of either description for a term whicr may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both' But' a pt rusal of the contents of complaints I chatge sheets in the present ba ch of cases' such ingredients are lacking and' therefore' Section - 269 of IPC does not arise in the present batch of cases'

27. In view of the above said discussion' acc( rding to this Couft, transportation, possession' storage' sale and purchase of tobacco products are not totally banned in the State of 1 elangana and also in the Country' Therefore' it cannot be said that j :ctions - 269' 270,271,2'72 and 2'73, 328' 336 and 420 of IPC are r tracted to the cases in this batch'

28. As far as the offences under FSS Act i: concemed' as 4' the leamed already discussed above, in Chidurata Shyamsubdr: Single Judge following the guidelines laid down b'the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lalro held that the police r e incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Se :tions - 54 and 59 (1) of the FSS Act, investigating into the offences I ong with other offences under the provisions of the IPC' It was li rlher held that hling charge sheet is a grave illegality' as the Foo'l Safety Officer , .-rr ^--,: - ^ t}'o 29 KL-.1 Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 & batch under Sections - 188, 270 and273 of IPC. Therefore, in the present batch ofcases, entertaining the complaints / hling 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 schedule therein dehne tobacco products. pan masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the definition oftobacco 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 Ct | '. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch K every package of cigarette or tobacco product co I ains a specified warning (pictoriat or otherwise). Section - 4 of thi IOTP Act, bans smoking in public places. In addition, Section - 6 : the COTP Act, prohibits the sale of cigarettes or other tobacco prc( ucts to a person who is under the age of 18 years are in an area wlt rin 100 yards of any educational institution. 3t. A reading of this Act, particularly Secttor s-4,5,6and1 clcarly shows that there is no general ban or general : 'ohibition on thc manufacture/sale of tobacco products. 22 What is bar ed is merely the sale of these products to a person, who is below th: age of 18 years and in an area within 100 yards of an educational nstitution. The other aspects covered by Sections - 5 and 7 of the lOl'P Act, deal with the adverlisement and the warning, which is to I : contained on a package, in which the tobacco product is packed' 'I't i i is a regulatory mechanism only. Therefore, according to this Coutt the above said allegations of transporlation, possession, storage, sali: rnd purchase of banned tobacco products will not attract the offence r nder Section -7 of the COTP Act

32. As far as Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Ac s concen.red, as stated above, the allegations against the petttton: tn respective complaints / charge sheets are that they were transporl ng, possessing, ccllina a-n h,,-^t ^-;-^ +1,^ l,o-nad tohacco troducts to the -: "*T -. 31 KL,J Crl.P. |ro.l52 of2020 &batch for better appreciation ofthe case and to decide the issue in question, and the same is as under: "20. Punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. (t)... (2) Ary person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the spccificd waming and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the case ol first conviction be punishable with imprisonmcnt for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine r'vhich 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 petitioners that they were carrying on trade or commerce ln contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified waming 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 waming. 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 Shyamsubdera. In view of the same, the offence \o.l j) oj)D0 & batch K Ol) principle laid down by the leamed Single Judges of t I I High Coufi of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder4, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raoll.

34. For the foregoing discussion and the authc r tative principle of law, Criminal Petition Nos. 3768, 3819,4046,40'7, 4098, 4099, 4t00, 4102, 4141, 4151, 4157 , 4182, 4187, 4241, 4',). t9, 4251, 4258, 4262, 4277, 4405, 4415, 4542, 4615, 4640, 4681,, 721, 47'75 and 4825 of 2021 are allowed quashing the proceed r gs against the petitioners therein in the respective crimes mentionc, therein. Since the proceedings in the aforesaid Criminal Petitic r s are quashed against the respective petitioners, the respective Station House Ofhcers / Investigating Officers are hereby directr: I to retum the seized properly / vehicles on proper identification art verification of ownership under due acknowledgment.

35. Further, Criminal Petition Nos. 152, 153, ;5, 162 & 5826 of 2020,3498, 3500, 3509, 3514, 4070, 4110, 411), 4140, 4178, 4194, 4216, 4230, 4361, 4612, 4622 atd 4632 o'.2021 are also allowed quashing the proceedings against the petition: s therein in the respective Calendar Cases mentioned therein. Since he proceedings are quashed, the respective petitioners are at liberty to hle appropriate applications before the concerned Magistrate for retr.r n of the seized properry / vehicle and the Magistrate shall consic t r the same in _- lr]ltl*:. E:?-!+* -.:,--- 33 KL.J Crl.P. No.l52 of2020 & batch As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed. osrH JULY, 2o2l Notc: L.R. copy to be marked. (B/o.) Mgr K. LAKSHMAN, J