The High Court · 2025

Order

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1475 of 2023 of Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad, pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1,.for the offences punishable under Section 20(2) of I \ the Cigaret.tes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (for short j 'COTP Act').

2. Heard Mr. Nand Kishore Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents I I 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2309 of 2024, dated rs.04.2024.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2309 of 2024, dated 15.04.2024., this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accusdd No.t in C.C.No.I475 of 2023 of Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad, . pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. \ To, 5 ; t //TRUE COPY// SD/.M. NAGAMANI REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Hyderabadd ^ 2. The SHO Chilkalguda potice Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRt. NANDA KTSHORE ..- - 4 ],-,:r33;l:[i"ttjr? PRosEcuroR, Hish court ror the state grreransana c-Ecr . . . r . yADAV Advocate [OpUCJ 1 7

5. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of order in criminal Petition.23ogt2o24 dated:15/0 4t2024) PIdPSL 5k s, I a I .F.:i!Ff!.{. . j. 4 n i_" t;'t s I a +t'' .!ifq 4?t*': .+1 ,l'.".; ,} A.'f, HIGH COURT I I DATED:1611212025 I I CRLP.No,.16790 of 2025 THE S?h () o ? 3 JAr 20U[ * * P/iTC , I CRIMINAI.. PEITITION IS ALLOWED. a J"K3 B t*t, THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. No. ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Criminal Procedure, l9Z3 (for short .Cr.p.C.J to proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 S.C.No.24 of 2021, on the file of the learned VIII of the Code quash the and 2 in Chief Metropolitan Mrgrstrate, Hyderabad, registered for offences punishable under Sections l8B, 269, 22O,272,223 of the Indian Penhl Code, 1860 (for short .the IpCJ, Section g (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Substances Act, 1985 (for short .the NDpS ActJ and 20 (2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco products Act, 2r (for short 'the COTP ActJ.

2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioners is that on while police were in patrolling, they found the

7.03.2020 possessing, selling and purchasing the banned products and ganja'respectively, for which, the police against the petitioners for the offences alleged , gutka a case . petitioners are that Sections 188, 269, 2ZO, 272 and. 73 of the IPC, Sec{ion 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the and Section 20 (2) of the COTP Act, respectively. Act on the said complaint the Police registered the case in Crime No.53 of 2 srs,J CrLP.No.2SO9 OF 2024 2O2O and after completion of investigation, they fiLed charge sheet and tlre same was numAered as S.C.No.24 of 2O2L on the file of the VIII A,lditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. Heard Sri Y. Bala Murali, learned counsel appearing on behalt: of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Publi<: Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague and did not attract any of the offence. M"kiqg his submission, he reiied on the judgrrient of this Court vide order dated O5.O7.2O21 in Criminal Petitirrn No.152 of 2O2O, wherein this Court quashed the procer:dings against the petitioners and he further submitted that the present matter is also covered by that order. As such, he prayerl the Court to allow the Criminal Petition.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that tre has no objection with regard to Sections 188, 269, 27O, 272, 273 of IPC and Section 20 (21 of COTP Act. The petitioners were also charged for the offence under Section Section 8 (c) read with Section 2O (b) (ii) @) of:the NDPS Act and he has prayed the Court that the trial has to be conducted for thr: offence punishable under NDPS Act. a * 3 srqJ CYLP.II,D.23O9 OF 2024 REI.EVANT PROWSIOIIS UNDER IPC: f # "788. Disobedience to order dulg promulgated bg public servant. - uthoeuer, knowing tltat, bg un order promulgated bg a public seruant lawfullg empowered to promulgate s-uch order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such directioo slwll, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obshudion, annoAance or injury, or risk of obstructiory annoAance or injury, to any person lawfuW emploged, be puni.shed with simple impisonmentfor a term uhich may extend to one month or utith fine which mag ertend to two landred rupees, or with both; and if sttch disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to Itumanlife, health or safetg, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affrag, slull be punisled with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six montls, or withfine which may ertend to one thousand rupees, or withboth. Erylanatiou If fs not necessary that the offender slwuld intend to produce harm, or antempLate his disobedience as likelg to produce harm. It is sufficient tlnt he knows of tle order uhich le disobegs, and that his di.sobedience produces, or is lilcelg to produce, hann. Ilfustration: An order is promulgated. bg a public servant laufullg empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass doutn a ertain street. A knowittglg di.sobegs th.e order, and tlereby ccruses danger of riot. A ha"s committed the offence defined in this sectton." "269. Negligent act likelg to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. - Whoeuer unlawfully or negligently does ang act which b, and which he knows or has reason to belieue to be, likelg to spread the infedion of any disease dangerous to life, sho.ll be puriisted with imprisonrT.ent of eitlet description for a term which mag ertend to sk montlw, or with fine, or withboth." 27O. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to ltfe. - Whaeuer malignantly does ang act which is, and which he knows or l.us reason to belieue to be, tikelg to spread the infection of ang disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with impri,sonment of eitler descriptionfor a term which mag ertend to two gears, or withfinq or with botlu"

272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.-Wlweuer adulterates ang articLe of food or drinh so @s to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or dink, or f, I 4 sKst J CrLP.Ifo..2Sog OF 2021 tuowing it to be likelg that the same uill be sold. as food or dinN shall be punished utith Wrisonment ol eitter description lor a term uhich may ertenl to six months, or uith fine u;hich mag extend to one tltjusa,nd. rupees, or with botlt" "273. Sale oJ noxbus food or drink.- Whoeuer sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, ang article uhich ha.s been rendered or ha,s become noious, or is in a state unft for food or d.rink, knowing or hauing reason to belieue tllot the so,me ris norubus as food or drink, sha[ be punish.ed. with imprisonmznt of eith.er description Jor a term which tag etend to six months, or with fne uhbh mag extend. tn one thousand. rupees, or with both.' RE!EV'rUgf PROUISTOTITS UNDTR COTP Aqn 20- Punish'/r'ent for faifure to giue specified warning antd nicotine and. tar @ntents.- (2) Ang person who sells or distributes coarettes or tobacco produ.cts uhich do not @ntojn uither on the package or on th.eir label" the specified wanning and. the niatine and to/ contents sh,,ll in co,se of fi.rst conuiction be punislabLe with impri-sonment for a tenn, which mag ertend to one Vear, or utith fine uhich nay ertend to one tlousand rupees, or with botL anL jor th.e second or subseEGnt conuiction, tuith imprisonment Jor a term which mag ertend to tuo Aears and. with Lne whbh mag ertend to three *ausarld. rupees-"

6. The lis involved in the present petition is no more res integra. A lee.rned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyannsubder 'rs. Stclte of felda,galcr had :m occasion to deal with the issues involved in the present criminal petition. After referring to various provisions of IPC, COTP a Act and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts in several judgments, t.I:e learned Single Judge had framr:d the issues, which zrre as under: ' crl.P-N o.3731 0f 2018 & batch, decided o n 27.Oa.2018 I I * I 5 srqJ cY,-P.Ifi.z3og OF 2024 "1) Whether the respondent/ Sub-Inspector of Police, is competent to investigate into the offence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) of FSS Act? 2) Whether the petitioners in all the petitions afe found committing any act with malicious intentioh, with knowledge and reason to believe that such act likety to spread the infection of any 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 becomenoxious or is in a state unlit for food or drink or reason to beteJe that the same is noxious as food or drink? If so, arle they liable to be proceeded .for the offence punishable under Sections 27O and 273IPC.?"

7. In the very same judgment, the learned Singte .ludge further held that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the 'food'Within the definition of Section 3 fi) of the FSS Act and the manufacture, sale or exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is governed by the prdvisions of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the provisioqrs of IPC. The respondents-Police are incompetent to investigate the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (1) of the FSS Act and allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the statements do not disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section - I 273 of IPC since transportation of noxious food is not ,i"r"tr.rd.a under Siction 273 of tPC. The act done by the accused thErein i.e., transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco though dangerous to human life, it would not spread or infect or cause any disease on s 6 srs,J CrLP.No.23O9 OF 2024 account of transportation and if those products are consumed by human being, it would certainly cause damage to the health. Therelore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco by itself is not a::r offence under Section - 27O of IPC. Pan Masala is not a tobacr:o product to fall within the purview of COTP Act. Therefore, the p'rovisions of the COTP Act have no application, thereby registration of crime on the ground of violation of Sections - 7 (1) (2) (3) (5) and Section 26 of COTP Act is an illegality. The learned Single: Judge further held that registration of cases for the offence under Section - 20 (2lrread with 7 (2) of COTP Act is illegal. With the szLid findings, the learned Single Judge has quashed the crimes and calendar cases in the said judgment.

8. In Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluttt Vasandhi ?Yipati Rao as. T,he State of Andhra Pradeshz, a learned Single Judge of the High court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati had also an occasion to deal with the said issue. After referring to the contention of the respective parties therein, various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and relying on the principle laid down in Anand. Ram.dhani Chaulrasia3, Joseph Kurian us. Sto;te of Kerala+, Sagged. I .f,fassan Sagyed. Subho;ns, M/s. Pepsico India lloldings @ttt) ' zozo (tl ALT (crt.) 21s (APHc) '2019 Scconline 8om 1857 o rggs (r) scJztT t 2018 l,rR (sc) 5348 r i C 7 SKS,J CrLP.Itb.z3Og OF 2024 Ld., us. State oll tt.it.6, SanJag Aniag Stores us' amion of Indid, Boop Singh Tyagt tts- St,.t.* , Stat'e of H*gana as' Bhajan Lot\ and. chidurala shgam.subder (Supra 1), +e learned single Judge has quashed the FlRs/Calendar cases. The learned Single Judge referring to the law laid down in bhiau'c/t' shgam.subder (supra 1) held that despite the said ar::thoritative pronouncement of [aw, status Eto conttnues. The said judgment attained finality. Even then, the police are register'ing cases against accused on the very same allegations for the very same offences. g- Referring to the provisions of Sections - 188, 269',,27O' 272 and.273 of IPC, the learned Judge in sri Jaganath Enterprises 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' circumstances only where there is violation of sections - 4,5,6,7 and 1o of the coTP Act. By referring to the principle laid down by the ApeJr Court in Bhajan Lal and M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (P\rt) Ltd., tfre learned the proceedings in various Single Judge has quashed a crimes/calendar cases. t zort (z) crimes 250 '20t7 SCC Online cal 16323 " 2oo2crl.t.!.2812 ' 1992 Srpp (1) scc 335 s t c 8 srs,J CrLP.No.23O9 OF 2024

10. Another learned single Judge of the High court ., oro#l Pradesh at Amaravati in v.Nagesutara Rao us. state of Andhra Prad.ctshlo had. also an occasion to deal with the said issue and agreerl with the principle laid down in chidurala. shgam.subd.er (Supr;r 1).

11. In Sagged Hassan Sagged Subhan (Supra 5), the Apex court while dealing with legality of the order passed by the Bombay High court in a batch of criminal writ petitions and crimirral applications, which were filed challenging the registration of FIRs for the offences under sections - 1gg, 272,273 and 32g of IPC and sections - 26 and 3o of FSS Act where there is an allega':ion of transportation and sale 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 findinlJ, the Apex court remitted the matter to the Bombay High court for fresh consideration on the issue that whether the afores;eid offences are made out in the. FIRs, which are subject matte' of the cases pending before the Bombay High court. L2. [n view of the authoritative pronouncement of law in the afores:rid judgments, as discussed above, coming to the facts of the cases on- hand, the allegations against the accused in respective, a 'o 2o2o srrpreme (Ap) 348 9 strsaJ Cl-LP.Itb.2sO9 OF 2O24 t cases are tr€rnsportation, possession, storage, sa.le and purchase of banned products viz., respectively. ln Chtdurald. Shqtmsubder (Supra 1), the learned Single Judge observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 27O 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 Single Judge has further observed in the said judgment which is as under: l o-.. The act done by the petitioners i.e., transportation of kLnini and cltcwing tobacco though dangerous of human tife, it uould not spread or infect or casue ang di.sease on acount of transpoftation qnd if those products are consumed by human being, it wouLd certainlg cause damage to the health. Tlerefore, transportation of khaini or clrcwing tobacco is not bg itself is not an offence under Sectbn - 270 of IPC and it would fall utithin Sedion 270 of IPC."

13. Section - 272 of IPC makes punishable an offqnce by a person, who adulterates any article of food or drink. Therefore, the said section would only come into play or drink is adulterated. There is' no definition of 'adulteration' in IPC. fn" la.nrrition 'aaulter.i is found in the provisions of the FSS Act. Section - 3 (1) (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulterant' which me€rns a material irt i"t, could make the 'food' unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded. According to Section - 272 of IPC, if a r4aterial is used to make t.l the food unsafe/sub-standard or'mis-braniled, then a f, t 10 srs,J CrLP.No.2sOg O, 2024 only the offence would be attracted. Whereas, as discussed supra, the allegation in the present batch of cases is with regard to translrortation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned produicts vtz. , tobacco / tambaku / gutka / k}:,aini / zard,a/ pan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the said allege.tion does not fall within the ambit of Section - 272 ot lPC. Therefore, I agree with the principle laid down by the learned Singlr: Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chldurala Shgo.ntsubder (Supra 1), Sri Jaganath Enterprises (Supra 2) and lt.Nageswarq. Rqo (Supra lO).

14. ln Joseph Kurio,n [Supra 4), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :hat for Section 272 - IPC to be attracted, the following should be present. (f) That the article involved was food and drink meant to be consumed by live persons; (2) that the accused adulterated it and :he 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 food or drink and knew that such article cannot be sc,ld as food or drink. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the offence is completed on the introduction of the adulterant. a 'Adulterant' would mean that a material which is mixed to make the 'f'ood' unsafe or drink unsafe. In the present case on harid, toban:co is not a food or drink and what is stated to be mixed in it is not clearly established by any cogent materiil as an'adulterant' I . 11 srqJ c.',,.P.r{o..23o9 0F 2024 for the offence under Section - 272 of IPC to be pressed into servlce.

15. Section - 273 of IPC deals with sale of a noxieus 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 I become noxious, or is in a state unfit for drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the sarne is noxious as food or $rink, shall be punished with imprisonment specified therein. Therefore, if a person offers for sale a "food or drink" any article huhich has become noxious or is in a state of unfit for "food or dri4k". Thus, the said section would apply, when an article which hps become noxious or which has been rendered noxious. It also applies to food or drink on1y. As held in Sri jaganath Enterpriseg; the word 'noxious'is not defined in IPC or in FSS Act. As per the dictionary meaning, the word hoxious' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As stated above, the allegation in the criminal petition is with regard to transportatiori, possession, st<irage, sale plrchase banned products tobacco/tambaku/gutka/khaini/zarda/pan masala iz., etc., a respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the contgnts of the complaiirt / charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section, - 275 of IPC. t s 72 SKS.J c"Lp.No.2g0g Or ZOi+ said crder with the 16' As far as section - 1gg of Ipc is concerned, as per the settred law on the subject, before an accused is charged, there must be; an o':der duly promulgated by the public servant; the public serva:rt must have the rawful authorit5r to promulgate the order; the person flouting the same shourd have knowredge about the order directing him to abstain from the act; he must disobey the and such disobedience of the duly a danger to the human life etc. In ibench of Allahabad High Court held that right to prom v /order is also an issue which is being raised, 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 Boop Singh T}agr.a promtrlgated order '?-* L. , 17' In rv'?' Ramq' Rao us. The state of A.p., rep'6y htbrtc Prosecutortl while dealing with the offences under sections _ rgg and 2€r3 0f Ipc, the rearned single Judge of the combined High Court c,f Andhra pradesh held as under: .S) Euen if the alleqation that the petitioner conducted public meetingi at three ,r";-i;;;.";; contrary to the. permissioi accorded. for *";;;;;;;f a pubtic meetins onty at o"" ii-"Ji"a;"r;;;";y_2. such a direction und., s*driio" iit"iEri"",u;, - t86t coll been giuen onlg bg the Supeintendent or the Assi^sint Supeinteii""i."if ^tuue.. 1l Criminal petition No.5323 of 2O}g,decided on17.09.2009 a 13 srs,J c}LP.1b.23O9 OF 2024 Police of the Distict but not bg ang of th.eir sttbordinates. If sach a permissionis granted. und.er Section 30 of the potice Act, lg61 aia is uiolated., Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal procedure mand.ates that the complaint in this regard. hrlls to be made bg the public seruant concemei or some other person to wlwm such a public seruant ,s administratiuely subordinate to enable any Court to tgkg agnizance of an offence under Secion 1gg of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, tlte c\arge sheet was filed bg tlle Sub lispector of police, who could not; haue been tle authority to grqnt permiss.ion fgriitrc public meeting and tiZreyore, the ampl-aint/cfuirge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195 (1) 9@ of Code of Ciminal Procedure. - 6. 'Ih4g,.apart, the offence aileged to have been commtftp( under Section 2$ oj the Indian P.enal Code Q[l.the-petitioners and. othei is obviouslg in ansequerice't<i the alleged offence und.er Section 188 of Code and is not an independent of the same.. otherwi"se, the cdqduce of public meeting at .road junctions or ob*truction to tle traffic could been considered as causing ang danger as the obstruction can abo be bg Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, slrcet cites onlg one witness to speak about the Jam caused by the road show. But, wlrcn the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for tlut public meeting resulted in any tnconuentence bg uag of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guiltA mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punislmble under Indian Penal Code. Ilnder th.e cirqtm.stances, none of the offences alleged. can b7 s.aid- to haue anA reasonable basis ond in ong ui9w, the amploint/cLnrge sheet being in uiolatioi of.Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal procedure, ho,s to fail.

7. As the complaint has failed. due to its unsustainabilitg, the proceedings in their entirelg haue to fail, tlwugh the ,'t accused. atorte approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition." t.. i ,

18. In Thota Chandra Sekhar us. The state of Andhra Pradesh, through s..tr.o., p.s. Eluttt Rural, west God,auari q t a :&'.,jl 14 srs,J CrLP.IiIo.23O9 OF 2024 Dk'trictr2, wherein by retying on various judgment including 'l\L?' RamaRao(Supra11)and'alsotheguidelineslaiddownbythe Ap,r* court in Bholian Lo;t (Supra 9) more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the code or the concerned Act (under wtrich a criminal proceedings 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 pr.oceedings in the said c.c were quashed by exercising power u:rder section - 482 0f Cr.P.C. It was also further held that the p;:oceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of o,rtaining prior permission under section - 155 (21 of Cr-P.C- and t:rking cognizance on the complaint frled by V.R.O and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr'P'C'

19. With regard to the offences under coTP Act, it is relevant to rnention the objects and the reasohs of the said Act itself clearly s;tate that the act is meant to prohibit the advertisement of, and to in, and provide for the regulation of trade and I 1:roduction, supply and distribution of, tobacco products and for matters connected incidental thereto. A reading of the said objects of the said Act would reveal 12 Criminal Petition No.15248 of 20t6, decided on 26'10'2016 'l i I. li: &r t 15 srs,J CtrLP.I$.23Og OF 2024 { 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 corp Act and the schedule therein define tobacco products. pan Masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the definition of tobacco products. seqtion - 5 of the corP 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 othet' products shall advertise the same. similarly, no person having the control over a medium can advertise cigarettes or tobacco prodp.lcts, and no person shall be part of any advertisement.

20. Section - 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment fpt failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. But, in the complaints/charge sheets, there is no allegation agalinst the petitioners that they were carr5ring on trade or commerce in contraband or €rny other tobacco products without lqbel and specified warning on the said products. In view of the same, the contents of the complaints/charge sheets lack the ingredients of section 20 (2) of the corp Act. Even there is no alleg$.tion that the seized products do not contain labels with statutory warning. Thus, registering the crimes for the said offence against the petitioners is not bnly contrar5r to Section _ 2O of COTP Act, but i: , 5 t 16 srs'J crLP,I{o.23O9 OE 2024 also contrary to the principle laid down in Chldutala' Shgamsubder. In view of the same, the offence under Section 20 (2) of COTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioners' I once again reiterate that I agree with the principle laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder, Sri Jaganath Enterprises and V' Nageslirara Rao.

21. ln view of the above said discussion, according to this Court, transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of tobacco prod.ur:ts are not totally banned in the State of Telangana and also in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sections - 188, 269, t'.7O, 272 and 273 of the IPC and Section 20 (21 ot COTP Act are al:tracted. to the present case. Insofar as the offence under Secticn 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, the petiti<lner is liable to be prosecuted.

22. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed in Part and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos'l ald 2 in S.C.ltlo.24 of 2021, on lile of learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 27O, 272 and 273 of the IPC and Section 20 (21 ot the COTP Act only are hereby quashed while permitting the prosecution to L7 srs,J CrLP.IIE.23O9 OF 2024 proceed further against the petitioners/ accused Nos.I and 2 for the offence punishable under section g (c) read with section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. I Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall arso stand closed. Date: L5.O4.2024 sAl K. SUJANA, J a \ $