High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad & another vs Petitioner

CORAM: * TEE IION'BLE.SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN + CRIMINAI, PETITION N0.152 OF 2020 & Batch 7o Delivered on: 05-07-2021 Betwe in Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 # Mr. Mohd. Jameel Ahmed $ The State of Telangana, rep.by Public prosecutor High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad & another Vs. Petitioner Respondents I For respective Petitioners : Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed Mr. Gaj daand Chalaavarthy Mr. K. Surender Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Ms. P. Radhika Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti Ms. C. Sunitha Kumari Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar Mr. S.M. Subhan Ms. N. Anhi Mr. Y. Bala Murati Mr. Boggula Raju Mr. S. Chaudrasekhar Mr. V. Yadukrisbna Sainath Respective leamed counsel Leamed Public Prosecutor t ^ For Respondents < Gist > Head Note ? Cases Referred L 2018 ArR (SC) 5148 2.20t6Cn.L.t.2.40t 3. 2019 SCC Onlrne Bom lE57 4. Crl.P. No.l73l of 201E & batch, decided on 27.0t.2018 5. 2020(l) ALr (Crt.) 215 (APHC) 6. 1995 (l) SCJ 277 7. 201 I (2) Cnmes 250 8. 2017 SCC Online Cal 16321 9.2002C|\.LJ.2E72 10. 1992 Supp (l) SCC 335 I l. 2020 Supreme (AP) 148 12. Criminal Petition No.532l of2009, decided on l?.09.2009 13. Criminal Petition No.15248 oa2016, decid€d on 26.10.20t 6 2 C.l P No li) of2020,& b,. l !i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.152, 153 .1 .162 & sE26 oF 202O AND 349 3500 . 3s09. 3574,3168.3879,4 046.4010,4017. 409E . 4099 .410 0.4102.4111 4119.4140, 4t41,4 151.415 7.417E. 41a2,4 t87, 4194, 4216. 4230.4247,421 B L ). I 42 4262 4271 4 61 440 4415 4 2 4 t2 461 4622 463 4641 46E1 4721 4115 & 4825 0F 2021, COMMoNORDER: All the above Criminal Petitions are filed to quash t 1 proceedings against the petitioners - accused in respective Crirne / Calendar Cases. The details of relevant Crimes i Calentra Cases, oflences alleged, nature of ofl'ences etc'' are rnentioned i the foltowing tabular form st. No 0l 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 IO t2 l3 Crl.P No. 1768121 3819Dl 4046n1 40'77 t21 4@9121 4100,2 r 4t02t?l 4t4Uzl 4t51t2l 4t5'7121 4t8l2l 4t8',7121 Crime No 217120 of PS Manoharabad 3ll2l ol PS Kadam 78/21 of PS (T) Adilabad zlnl of PS l8szl of PS (T) Nirrnal No.36/21 ot PS Koutala No.38/21 of PS Easgoan 45521 of PS Kukatpally 45121 of PS Chiragpally 198,21 of PS Choutuppal 134,21 of PS Chityal (NLG) 74121 ofPS R 20221 orPS (T) Mancherial Otfences allegcdly Nature ofoflc 1 i Number accused accused Al &2 A1 (o3 accused Alto3 accused )12.. 2/l l?c & 20 (l) r/* 7(2) or COTPA 2't0 &2'73 IPC -do -do-

270. 271 IPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA 2'70 & 213 tPC 270 &2',71lPC 316, 273 & 188 IPC & 59 (i) of FSSA 2't0 & 21f lPc & 20(2t * 7(21 ot COTPA 272 & 2-13 lPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA 2'72, 2'73 & 328 rPC & 20 (l) & 7 (3) ofCOTPA Al &2 accused 210&213 tPC. 'do Transpo rtation ol I Sate ofbann(i t( t cco Sale ofgutka,/to ri .co ],n Possession of: /tobacco in pan Trarlspo[aho r f rohibited Possession of to ) ts in the r Possession ofb .r gutka & oder tcb ,co I !1 -..- rtems m l( salelr Trdnsportatioo a ofprohibited to roducts Transponatio r f tobacco prodr'c I StoraSe oftob ( o for:a Purchasc and s I of prohibited tob l( o tmn+ortation otl nned Possession ofb rodl (i I l accused Al &2 accused accused At&2 A1 rol accused accusd At &2 . KL.J Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 & batch -do- -d,o -do {o 188, 272, 277 & 32t IPC 188, 272 & 217 IPC {o t88,269,270, 273 rlw 34 IPC & 3ofEDA&51 (b) ofDMA -do- r/w 34 iPC 328 rlw 5ll, 272 & 273 IPC 270, 272 & 213 IPC & 20 (2) of COTPA 328,2',72, 273 & t8E IPC 32E, 270 & 2'71 riw 5tI IPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA Possessioo ofbantred qu&a products Sale ofgr:tka and About to traDsport uoxions guika and tobacco prDducts Sale of bamed gutka and tobacco products TraosportatioE of gu&a ard lobacco products Sale of banned tobacco (taobaku) products in Transport tion of gutka/tobacco products Possession ofbsnned gutka /tobacco products Possession of tobacco products in kirana shop Possession of prohibited tobacco products for sale Transportation of banned tobacco/gutka pockets Possession ofbanned gutka & tobacco products in kirana shop Transporlatron of ctgarctte or other lobacco products without valid license Sale of gutka & khaini Transportation of baaned Sutka Al & 2 270 & 273 rPC l4 l5 4241121 4249tzt

16. 425tt2l t7 l8 l9 20 2t 425ElZt 4262nt 4211U 4405Dl 44t5m

22. 4542/2t 23

24. 25 46tst2l 4640/2t 468tnl 61/21 of PS It Towa Adilabad l0l/21 of Ps t To*n Aditabad 9021 of PS I Town Adilabad 9l/21 of PS I Tow Adilabad 107/21 of PS I Town Adilabad t6Z2I of PS Abdullapu rmet 20221 of PS I Town Nalgonda 232/21 of PS I (T) Naleonda t7,21 of PS III (T) Kothagudem 225121 of PS Nirmal Town E9i 20 of PS Mamada 186/21 of PS Peddavoom 26 4727n1 16421 of PS Adibatla A] 21 4175D\ 28 4t2512t 214121 of PS I (T) Naleonda 245121 of PS Icrammam (R) Al&2 29 30 3l 32 t52120 t$n0 1s520 t62/20 33 5826t20 34 3498t2t 35 350021 CALENDAR CASES l5l5/19 of I,AJMFC, Waransal 2724/19 of XVII ACMM. Hvd. 3518/19 of I.AIMFC, 4717118 of XI AMM, Sec.bad Special Magistrate of tt Class, Jagtial 216t20 of JFCM, Devarkonda 963119 of JFCM, Miryalguda A3 A2 At &2 At &2 Al to4 210, 271 & IEE.42O IPC & 58 ofFSSA 272 & 273 IPC & 59 of FSSA,2006 420, 270 & 273 IPC & 58 ofFSSA 272,213,336 & 420 tPC & 20 (2\ ot COTPA t8t, 210 & 273 IPC 420 & 273 IPC 420 & 271 rPC & 20 (ii) of corPA,2ool Tcansponation of banned zarda products Sale of zada illegally Trarsponation of bamed zarda Sale ofprohibited gutta End chewing tobacco products Traispo nation ofAmber Butka Pockets Sale ofbanned lobacco and gutka Prcducts ' Translo nation oftobacco and gutka products ] 4 KL.J Crl.P. tio.I t2 of 2t), ) latch 188, 270 & 273 IPC, 20 (2)of COTPA, I ofEDA & 5l O) of DMA t8E, 2'.70, 273 & 420 rPC & 20 (2) ot COTPA 272 & 273 rPC & 20 (2) nwTe\or COTPA 2't0 & 2'73 rPc & 20 (2\ r/w 1 (2) ot COTPA 270,27t. 112 & 211 r/w 14 IPC Sec.l ofEDA 272 & 2',73 IPC & Sec.20 (l), 20 (2) ot COTPA 270 &273 rPc & 20 (2\ ofCOPTA 188, 272 & 273 tPC & 20 Q)asof COTPA 270 & 2'71 IPC & 20 (2) Of COTPA Al &2 Al to5 AI &2 accused accused Al&2 At &2 -do- Al &2 210 &273 tPC -do -do Sole accusd Al &2 A3 Storage of barmed gutii aid olher tobacco products rlle!r y for sale Supply ofgutka ard o h r tobacco producrs Trar6portation of Am )r tcbacco Transpo(ation ofpan n sala and barmed gurk r lmnsportation oIcotro r rlds and baturcd gurk Transpo(ation ofbann ( bbacco and gutka Purchase aDd sale olbarr d gutka Sale oftobacco produ t in fus shop and disobeyrDg r l rules imposed by Govr r Not.No.505/FSS- 1121 . h t.l.2l Tmnsponalion of^ml . gutka T.an+oflahon ofgur { pan masala Possession oftobaccD I r ducts illegally for saL Purchase and sale ofpr, bited gukapockets Poss€ssion ofgutka pa.k.:r at bus stand for sale illegr I 5 36 3s09/21 452120 of )O(V MMC, Ibrahimpatan A.t &2 1',7 35t4t21 632119 of XXV MMC, AltoS 4070nt l8 39 41t0l2t 40 41t9/21 4l 4I4012t 42 4t7E/21 43 4t94Dt 44 45 46 47 48 4216nt 4230/2t 436tnl 46tU2t 4622m 49 4632J21 547/21 of PJMFC, Gajwel 509120 o[ Spl.PCR Mobile Court cum JMFC, Adilabad 512120 of Spl PCR Mobile Court-cum- JMFC, Adilabad SIC No.20/21 of IV AMM- cum-lv AJCJ, L.B. Nagar 810,2I of IAJMFC, Klarnmatrr 6167/21 of XVII ACMM, Nampally l298nl of PJMEC, Kharnmam B29lLl of PJA,,[FC, Khammam 108/21 of AJMFC, Asifabad 533/20 of AJMFC, Niraal 622119 of AI]!{FC, Nirmal 413n0 o[ AJMFC, Nirrnal -do' r/w 14 rPC & 20 (2) OfCOTPA Transportalion ofban c( I bacco Products

2. Heatd Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, Mr. Gajanand Chakavanl L Mr. K. Surender,. Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Ms. P. Radh I r. 5 KL,T C,l P No 152 of2o20 & batch Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti, Ms. C. Sunitha Kumari, Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Mr. S.M. Subhan, Ms. N. A-rthi, Mr. Y. Bala Murali, Mr. Boggula Raju, Mr. S. Chandrasekhar, Mr. V. Yadukrishna Sainath, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of respective petitioners and leamed 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 order.

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 / pan masala respectively. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections - I88,270,269,271,272,2'13,328, 336 & 420 read with 34 and 5l I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for sho( 'IPC'); Sections - 20 (l),20 (2) and 5 read with (2) and 7 (3) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, I Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'COTP Act'); Sections - 58 and 59 of the-Food Safety and Standards Act,2006 (for short'FSS Act'); Section - 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (for short 'ED Act') and Section - 51 (b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short DS Act) respectivcly. 6 ,\L,J Ctt P. No It) of2(1: , botch .rfi

5. The respective learned counsel appearing on behall',r the petitioners in the above criminal petitions would submit thiLl the contents of complaint / charge sheet lacks the ingredients t f the offences alleged against the accused. For the offences und(r the provisions of FSS Act, only Food Safety Oflicer is having po\'1 : to initiate criminal proceedings against accused and the police ar: not having any power to register a case for the offences undc- the provisions ofFSS Act. Tbere is no inducement by the petitioner: nd, therefore, offence under Section - 420 of IPC does not t; se. According to them, the contents of complaint / charge sheet arc lso Iacking the ingredients of the olfences under Sections - 269, 27 0. '- 1 l.

272.273,328 and 336 of IPC. i) According to them, there is no violation of Sections - 2( l), 20 (2) and 5 read with 7 (2) and 7 (3) of the COTP Act. ' he Investigating Officers / Complainants without following the proceJ rre laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for r[ >rt 'Cr.P.C.'), have registered the cases for the offence'under Scctir r - 188 of IPC and laid charge sheet against the accused. Neccs; ry ingredients to attract the provisions of Section - 3 of the ED Act i rd Section - 51 (b) of the DM Act are lacking in the complaint / chru 3,e sheet. ii) With the above said submissions, the respective ,learn ;d counsel sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crim,: 1 calendar cases. I I 7 KL.J Clt P- No.tt2 o/ 2020 & batch

6. On the other hand, leamed pubtic prosecutor referring to the principle laid down in the State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Salyed Subhanl by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao v. The State of Maharashtra: 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 inegularity 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 vjz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini / zarda / 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 filed the present criminal petitions under Section - 482 of Cr.p.C. which cannot be considered at this stage. D With the above said submissions, leamed public prosecuror sought to dismiss the above criminal petitions. I

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: '. 2orE ArR (sc) 5348 '?. 20t6 cn. I-.J.24ot r. 2019 SCC OnlineBom 1857 8 KL.J Crl P. No-t52 of20)t . batch RELEVANT PROVISIONS T]NDER IPC "lEE. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant larvfully empowered 0o promulgate such order, he rs drrected to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obs8uctioo, aruroyaEce or injury. or risk of obstruction. an-ooyance or injury, to aoy person lawfully employed, be punished with simple irnprisonmetrt for a term which nray extend to one month or with Frne which may extcnd to trvo hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobcdiencc causes or trends to cause danger to human life. health or sa{ety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term rvhich may cxtend to srx months, or with hne which may extend to one rhou\and rupce". or with both. Explanation. It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedieoce as likely to produce harn. It is sufficient that he loows ofthe order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public sewaut lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directi.ug that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger ofriot. A has cornmrtted the offence dehned in this sectiotr." '269. Negtigent act Iikely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likelf to spread thc infection of any disease dangerous to lLfe, shalt be punished with imprisonmeot of either description for a tenn which may extend to six montis, or with fine, or with both." "270. Malignant act likety to spread infection of disease dangerous to [ifc. Whoever malignantly does any act which l 9 Ctl.P tio-t52 ol 2020 & barch is, and 'vhich he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infectiou of atry disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonmetrt of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." "271. Disobedience to quaratrtitre rule.-Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Govemment for putting any vessel ioto a state ofquaraotine, or for regulating the intercourse of vessels itr a state of quaranthe with the shore or with other vessels, or for regulatiag the intercourse between places where ao infectious disease prevails and other places, shall be punished with imprisooment of either description 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 drinh, 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 imprisonnent of either description for a terur which may extend to six months, or wiih hoe 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 uox- ious as food or &ink, 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 o both." "328. Causing hurt by meaos of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.-Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any persotr any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thitrg with intetrt to cause hurt to such persoo, or with i.ntent 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 l0 LJ Crt-P. No.t 52 of 202( " t L'tt 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 negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safery of others' shatl be puoished with impnsonment of either descnption for a term which may cxtend to three months, or with fine which may extend to tlvo hundred and fifty rupees' or with both " "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whocver cheats aod thereby dishonestly induces the person decetved to deliver any property to any person' or to make. altcr or dcstroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or seated' and which is capable of being converted into a valuable secunty' shall be punished $ith imprironmcnt of either description for a term which may exlcnd to seviJn years' and shall also be liable to lLne." "34. Acts donc by scvcral persons in furtherance of common intentioo. Whcn a crimtnal act is done by several pe$ons in furtherance o[ (he common intention of al[' each of such persons is liable for that act in the same mam as if it were done b1 him alonc " "511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishabte with imprisonment for life or other imprisonmcnt- whoevcr attempts to commit an offencc punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonmeot, or to cause such an offence to be committed' aod io such attempt does any act towards the corDmission of the offence. shall, where no express provisiotr is made by this Code for the punishment of such atteopt' be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence' for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisooment for lile or, as the case may be, one-half of the tongest term of imprisoD- rnent provided for that offence' or with such fine as is provided for the ot'fencc, or with both " I l KL.J Crl P. No.t52 of2020 & barch RELEVANTPRousIONS T'ND ERCOTP ACT "5. Prohibition of adveriisement of cigarettes ard other tobacco products. {l) Nolpersou engaged in, or purported to be engaged in the productiotr, supply or distribution ofcigaretres or any other tobacco products shall advertise aod Do p€rson havilg control over a medium shall cause to be advertised cigarettes or any other tobacco products tfuough that medium and no person shall take part in any advertisement which dl€ctly or iodirectly suggests or promotes the use or consumption ofcigarettes or any other tobacco products. (2).M person, for any direct or indirect pecuoiary benefit, (a) display, cause to display, or perrnit or authorise to disptay any advertisement ofcigarettes or any other tobacco productfoT (b) sell or cause 10 sell. or permit or authorise to sell a film or vrqeo mpe cootainrng advenisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or (c) distribute, cause to distribute, or pennit or authorise to distnbule lo rhe public any leaflet. hand_till or docum-,-*ii.f, ls or whlch conhins aD advertiseEeot of cigarettes or ar]y other tobacco product; or l9],:.::l :lolol. trx or reraitr upon or over any tand. building. wal-, noardng, trame, post or structure or upou or in any vehicie or shall display in any manner whatsoever io *" ri"..--_, ' adveflisement ofcigarettes or any other tobr"";;;;r;; Provided that this sub_section shall not apply in relation tG- (a) an advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product rn or on a package containing cigaretres or any other iobacco product; (bJ. advenisement of cigaretres or aoy other tobacco product which is drsp[ayed at the entrance or inside a ,r"."t o*" o.l -ur"- shop where cigaremes and aDy other tobu"co prodrcs offered for distributioo or sale. (3) No person, shall, under a contract or oherwise promote or agree to promote the use or consumption oF (a) cigarettes or any other tobacoo product; or (b) any trade mark or brand aame of cigarettes or any other l!li::.,q.d.r., in exchange for a sponsorship, gin, pr,r"-o. scDolarshrp grveD or agreed to be given by another persoo.,, a *20- for failure to give specified warning aod -Punish,Dent nrconne aDd tar cotrtents._ (t)Any person who produces or maoufach.rres cigarettes or tobacco producLs, which do not contain, either oo the package or t2 KL,] Crl P- No.t:2 of2t), ' botch otr thet label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar contenLs, shall in the case of Fust conviction be punishable with imprisoDme[t for a term which may extend to two years, or with hne which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both, and for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisoDrnent for a term which may extend to five years and with fioe which may exteld to ten thousald rupees. (2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco producG which do not contain either orl the package or on their label, the specified waming and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the case of first convictiotr be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand mpees, or with both. and, for the second or subsequcnt conviction, with imprisonment for a tenD uhich may extetrd to two years and with fine which may ertend to thrce thousand rupees." "7. Restrictions otr trade and commerce in, and productiou, supply and distribution of cigarcttes 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 cigarenes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him bears thereoo, or on its label such specified waming including a pictorial waming as rnay be prescribed. (2) No persoo shall carry on trade or commerce in ci-garettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products sold, supplied or distributed by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified waming. (3) No person shall import cigarettes or any other tobacco products for distnbution or supply for a valuable consideration or for saie in India ulless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products so imported by him bears thereon, or on is label. the specrfied waming. (4) The specified u.aming shall appear on not less than one of rhe largest panels ofthc package in which cigaretres or a-oy other t l3 KLJ C,l.P. No 152 of2020 & batch tobacco products have beeD packed for distributioo, sale or supply for a valuable consideration. (5) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, supply or disEibule cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or ary other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him indicates thereon, or on its label, the nicotine atrd tar contents otr each cigarette or as the case may be on other tobacco products along with the maximum permissible limits thereof: Provided that the nicodne and tar contents shall not excecd the maximum permissible quantity thereofas may be prescribed by rules made under this Act." RELEVANT PROITSIONS UNDER F.S.S. Act: '58. PeIlalty for contraventions for which no specific peoalfy is provided.-Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separatety provided in this Chaprer, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees " "59. Punishmeut for uusafe food.-Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalt manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports aoy anicle of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punrshable,- (i) where such failure or contravention does not result-in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may exteod to six months and also with Frne which may cxtend to one lakh rupees; (ii) where such failure or contravention results irt a non-grievous injury, with imprisonmeut for a term which may exteod to ooe year and also with fine which may extend to tluee la-kh rupees; (iii) where such failure or contraveution results in a grievous rnjury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years ald also with hne which may extend to five lakh rupees; (iv) where such faiture or contravention results in death, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than s€ven years but which may extend to imprisolment for life and also with Frne which shall oot be less than ten lakh rupees." l l4 IiL,J C.LP No t5? ol)0:0 \ 'dch RELEVANT PRO\ISION UNDER E.D. ACT "3. Peualty. 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 Indian Penal Code (45 of IE60 )." RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER D.M. ACT "51. Puuishment for obstruction, etc. (t) Whoever, wrthoul reasonable cause- (t) Whoever, without reasonable cause-" (a) obstructs any ofticer or employee of the Central Govenunent or the State Govemment, or a person authorised by the National Authority or State Authonty or District Authority in the discharge of his functiofls under this Act; or (b) refuses to comply with any direction grven by or on behall of the Central Govenrment or the State Governmcnt or the Natioual Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on colviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in [oss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable wilh imprisonmetrt for a term which may extend to two years. notcs on clauses Clauses 5l to 58 (Secs. 5l to 58) seeks to Iay dowo what will constihrte an offence in terms of obstructioo of the functions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of false waming, failure of an officer to perform the duty imposed on him under thc Act without due permissron or lawful cxcuse, or his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide for penaltres for these offences."

8. The 1is involved in the present petitions is no morc es integra. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State ofTelangana and the State of Andhra Prar r ;h in Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana4 had an occa ir )n to deal with the issues involved in the present criminal petiti r s. After referring to various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Acr a rd also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and other High Cor ts '. Crt p. No.lz31 of20l8 & batch, dccided on 27.08.2018 l} l5 KL.J Cd.P- No 152 of 2020 & batch in several judgments, the learned Single Judge had framed the issues' which are as under: "1) Whether the respondent/ Sub-Inspector of Police, is competent to investigate ioto the offeoce punishable under Sections 54 and 59(l) of FSS Act? 2) Whether the petitiooers in atl the petitions are found committing any act with malicious intention, with knowledge and reason to believe that such act likely to spread the infection of any disease dargerous 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 noiious or is in a state unfu for food or drinl or reason to believe that the same is ooxious as food or drinl'l If so, are they liable to be proceeded for the offence punrshable under Sections 270 ar.d 213 IPC.?"

9. After an elaborate discussion and on consideration of various aspects, the leamed Single Judgc has held that the police cannot take cognizance of the offence, to investigate into and file charge sheet against the accused therein for the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) ol FSS Act, as they were not empowered under the said Act to launch the prosecution, but only Food Safety Ofircer apppinted by the Govemment alone is competent to launch prosecution for those two offences' With the said ftndings' the leamed Single Judge has quashed the proceedings where the offences are under Sections - 54 and 59 of FSS Act initiated by the police.

10. In the very same judgment, the leamed Single Judge further hetd that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the 'food' within the definition of Section - 3() ofthe FSS Act and the manufacture' sale or a I t6 {1..J CrtP No Ii2 of)0: t harch exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is govemed by the provisicr ; of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the provisions of IPC lhe respondents - police are incompetent to investigate the oil nce punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) of the FSS Ac rnd allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the statements d ) not disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section . )73 of IPC since transportation of noxious food is not included i r ler Section - 213 of IPC. The act done by the accused therein .e., transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco though dangcrtrrrr to * human [ife, it would not spread or infect or cause any discas: on accounl of transportation and if those producls are consumerl by human being, it would certainly cause damage to the lrcu th. Therefore, transportation of khaini or chewing tobacco by itselI r. rot an offence under Section - 270 of IPC. Pan Masala is not a tob n co product to fall within the purview of COTP Act. Thereforc. he provisions of the COTP Act have no application, thereby regisrnrr tn of crime on the ground of violation of Secrions - 7 (l) (2) (3) (5) : rd Section - 26 of COTP Act is an illegality. The leamcd Single .tr c ;e further held that registration of cases for the offence under Secri,r - i 20 (2) read withT (.2) of COTP Act is illegal. Wirh rhe said findirr s, the leamed Single Judge has quashed the crimes and calendar casc; n the said judgment. t7 KL,J C,t.P No.tt2 of 2020 & batch

11. In Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasadhi Tripati Rao v. The State ofAndhre pradeshs; a learned Single Judge ofthe High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravti had also an occasion to d.eal with the said issue. After referring to the contentions ofthe 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 Hassao Sayyed Subhanr, IWs. Pepsico India Holdings (pvt) Ltd., v. State of U.p.7, Sanjay Anjay Stores v. Union of India8, Boop Singh Tyagi v. Statee, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalro and Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the learned Singte Judge has quashed the FIRs / Calendar Cases. The learned Single Judge referring to the law laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera held that despite the said authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues. The said judgment attained frnality. Even then, the police are registering cases against accused on the very same allegations lor the very same offences. i) Referring to the provisions of Secrions - 153, lgg, 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 hetd that the provisions of the COTP Act can only be pressed into service in the limited 2020 (l) ALT (Crl.) 215 (APHC) 1995 (1) SCJ 277 201 I (2) Crimes 250 2017 SCC Online Cal 16323 2002 C.l.L.l.2872 1992 Supp ( l) SCC 135 I ! IE KL J Cll.P No.l5l oI20lt) t rotch circumstances only where there is violation ofSectiorr: 4,5,6,'7 and 10 of the COTP Act. By referring to the principh aid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lat10 and M/s. Pepsico lr Jia Holdings @vt) Ltd.7, the leamed Single Judge has quashc( the proceedings in various crimes / calendar cases.

12. Another learned Single Judge ofthe High Court ofAr c rra Pradesh at Amaravati in V. Nageswara Rao v. State of Anrl Lra Pradcshl had also an occasion to deal with the said issue and al red with thc principle [aid down in Chidurala Shyamsubder{.

13. In Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr, the Apex Courl r ilc dealing with legality of thc order passed by the Bombay High Cor r in a batch of criminal writ petitions and criminal applications, uh ch were filed challenging the registration of FIRs for the offences u,r ler Sections - 188, 272, 273 and 328 of IPC and Sections - 26 and 3 t of the FSS Act where there is an allegation of transportation and sarr of Gutka / Pan Masala etc., held that the judgment of Bombay It 3h Court is contrary ro the provisions ofthe Act and law laid down h1 it. With the said hnding, the Apex Court remitted the matler to :re a Bombay High Court for fresh consideration on the issue that whct er the aforesaid offences are made out in the FIRs, which are sLrl j ct matter of the cases pending before the Bombay High Court. rr. 2020 Supreme (AP) 34E l, l9 KL.J Crl.P No. t52 of2020 a 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 v2., tobacco i tambaku / gutka lkhaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. In Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the leamed Single observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or khaini or pan masala do not constihrte an offence punishable under Section - 270 of IPC and that manufachrring ofpan masala is not included in Section - 273 ol IPC and, therefore, the same is not an ofl'ence 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 petitioncrs 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 transportatioD 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 - 210 of IPC and it would fall within Section 270 of IPC."

15. Section - 272 of IPC makes punishable an oflence by a person, who adulterates any article of food or drink. Therefore, the said section would only come into play iffood or drink is adulterated' There is no defrnition of 'adulteration' in IPC. The definition of 'adulterant' is found in the provisions of the FSS Act. Section - 3 ( I ) i 20 I;L.J Ctl.P. No.l52 of20't 4 batch (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulterant' which means a mrt rial which could make the 'food' unsafe or sub-standard or mis-bra r ed. According to Section - 272 of IPC, if a material is used to make the food ursafe/sub-standard or mis-branded, then only the offence r,r uld be attracted. Whereas, as discussed supra, the allegation irr the present batch of cases is with regard to transportation, possc:.s rn, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco / tarnb Lku I gutka / khaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. Thercf re, according to this Court, the said allegation does not fall withirr .he ambit of Section - 212 of IPC. Therefore, I agree with the prin; rle laid down by thc leamcd Single Judges of the High Courl of Ani u'a Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprir:ss and V. Nageswara Raot'-

16. In Joseph Kurian6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held t Lat lor Section - 272 IPC to be attracted, the following should be pre: t .rt. (l) That the article involved was food and drink meanr 1(, re consumed by live persons; (2) rhat the accused adulierated it and re adulteration rendered it noxious as a 'food or drink'; (3) that re accused knew at the time of adulteration that he would sell the arri Ie a as food or drink and knew that such article camot be sold as foo,l :r drink. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the offenc: is completed on the introduction of the adulterant. 'Adulterant' wrt.d mean that a material which is mixed to make the 'food' unsali rr drink unsafe. In the present case on hand, tobacco is not a foor rr. 2t KL,J Cn.P i\-o.tt2 o[)020 & htch drhk and what is stated to be mixed in it is not ctearty 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 32g the prosecution is requred to prove that the substance in question was a poison, or any stuperyitrg, irtoxicatitrg or unwholesome drug etc, that the accused administered the substance to the complailatrt or caused the complainant to take such substance, Olat he did so with intent to cause hurt or knowing it ro 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 ro 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 se[[s, 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 secrion would apply, when an article which has become noxious or which has been rendered noxious. It also applies to food or drink onty. As held in Sri Jaganath Enterprisess, the word ,noxious' is not defined in l 22 t..J C.t.P. No-152 o12020 tt , t'h IPC or in FSS Act. As per the dictionary meaning, the word 'noxrc ts' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc' As stated above he allegation in the entirc batch of present criminal petitions is r ith regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products I'2., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini / zarda 'an masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court 'he contents of the cornplaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Se : on - 273 ot IPC 1 9. As far as section - 188 IPC is concerned , as per the st t lcd law on the subject, before an accused is charged, there must b: an order cluly promulgated by the public servant; the public servant r ust have the larvful authority to promulgate the order; the person flo'r ing the same should have knowledge about the order directing hin to abstain from the act; he must disobey the said order witl' the knowledge; and such disobedience of the duly promulgated I der should cause a danger to the human life etc' In Boop Singh Ty:r; ie a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that right to promr I late the ordinance/order is also an issue which is being raised, be; use under the FSS Act, the Commissioner of Food Safety alone hi: the authority to pass the orders only if the article of 'food' can cl tses danger or is injurious to health. a 23 KL'J Crl P. No 152 of2020 & batch

20. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorr2 while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, the leamed Single Judge of the combined High Court ofAndhra 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, 1861 could have been given only by the Supcrintendent 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, t861 and is violated, Section 195 (l) (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 eoable 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 t-ospector 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(l)(a) ofCode of Criminal Procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an rr. Crimrnal PetitionNo.5323 of2009, dccided on I?.09.2009 l 24 Ctl-P No-l52 of2L): ) KL,] t tch independent of the sarne. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considercd as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concenred, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffrc jam caused by the road show. But, when the conduct o[ the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that publiL mecting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the trafhc, the same cannot be considored to be with necessary gullty mers rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under lndian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to havc any reasonablc basis and in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (l) (a) ofCode of Criminal procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due to its unsustainability, rhe proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the I't accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition." a

21. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andh a Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godar a .i Districtrr, wherein by relying on various judgments including N.. .. Rama Raor2 and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Courl 1 Bhajan Lalr0 more particularly, guideline No.6, which says 1lr t rr. Criminal Perihon No.15248 of 2016. decrded on 26. 10.2016 25 KL.J Crl P No.) 52 of 2020 A barch where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concemed 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 concemed 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 - 4g2of Cr.p.C. [t was also further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section _155(2)of Cr.p.C. and taking cognizance on the complaitrt filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Secrion - 195 (l) (a) of Cr.p.C.

22. Yide Notification No.50I/FSS_ I /20 20, d,ated 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, khaini, kharra, scented tobacco / flavoured tobacco or by whatever name locally it is called packed in sachets / pouches / package in the entire Stage of Telangana urd". fSS Act, 2006. It is for one year. Vide Notification No.505/FSS- l/2021, dated,06.01.2021, rhe same was extended for one more year. As per the information fumished and instructions received, sevcral writ petitions were filed challenging the said t 26 Ctl P No.l52 of20;t) i dtch Notifications before this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme ( c rrt. A Division Bench of this Court declined to entertain somc rrit petitions on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court seized o[ .he said issue. It is also relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme ('r urt remanded back thc matter to this Court. Therefore, such a notihciLl on can only be issued for emergency sihrations and for prohibitinl he distribution and sale of any article of a food cannot be lost sight rfl Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the above judgn-r rrs including the judgments in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jagarr: th Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raor r. According to this (1rr rt, Section - 188 of IPC u,ill not attract kr the allegations leveled agr i Lst the petitioners herein in this batch of criminal petitions.

23. As far as Section - 328 of IPC is concerned, it deals ,v th causing hurt by means o[ poison, etc., with intent to commir rn offence. As per the said provision, whoever administers to or calr: ls to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxica iLg or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to s.r ,h person, or with intcnt to commit or to lacilitate the commission ot n offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, sh I be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term u,l_. i h may cxtend to ten years, and shall also be tiable to fine. Thereh,r :, there should be administering poison, inroxicating etc., with inten, o cause hurt to such person or with intent to commit or to facilitatc ll e commissron of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he r,r I 2',1 KL-J Ctl-P- No 152 of2020 & botch 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 ofIPC.

24. As far as Section - 336 ofIPC is concemed, 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 tfuee months, or with hne which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, 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 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 i contents of complaints / charge sheet lack the ingredients of Section - 420 of IPC. t

26. As far as Section - 269 of IPC is concemed, it deals with negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life, and as per which, whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act KL.J I 2 /2020&batch Crl.P- ^o which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to r , tikely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shalt r punished with imprisonment of either description for a term whiclr r ay extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. But, a per.r al of the contents of complaints / charge sheets in the present bak I of cases, such ingredients are lacking and, therefore, Section - 269 o IPC does not arise in the present batch of cases.

27. In view of the above said discussion, accorrii g to this Court, transportation, possession, storage, salc and pr chase of tobacco products are not totally banned in the State of Tel r; gana and also in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Secri, ns - 269, 270,271,272 and 273, 328,336 and 420 ol IPC are attrac cd to rhe cases in this batch.

28. As far as the offences under FSS Act is corc :med, as already discussed above, in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, trr 'leamed Single Judge following the guidelines taid down by th: Ilon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lalr0 held that the police are inc )rnpetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sectior s - 54 and a 59 (1) of the FSS Act, investigating into the offences along v ith other offences under the provisions of the IpC. It was furthcr rcld that filing chargc sheet is a grave illegality, as the Food Safet. Officer alone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet'follr ving the Rules laid down under Sections - 4l and 42 of FSS Acr ln the present case, the police have registered the crime lor thr rf'fences F F, I t. 29 KL,T Crl P No 152 of2020 & botch under Sections - 188,270 and 273 of IPC. Therefore, in the present batch ofcases, entertaining the complaints / filing the charge sheets by the police is contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubder{.

29. With regard to the offences under COTP Act, it is relevant to mention the objects and the reasons of the said Act itself clearly state that the act is meant to prohibit the advertisement of, and to provide for the regulation of trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, cigarettcs and other tobacco products and for matters connected therewiih or incidental thereto. A reading ofthe said objects of the said Act would reveal that a total ban of tobacco products was not envisaged by thc said Act. The Parliament merely felt it expedient to con[rol the advertisement and sale of tobacco products. As noted earlier in the order, Section - 3 (p) of the COTP Act and the schedule therein define tobacco products. Pan masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the definition of tobacco products. Section .- 5 of the COTP Act deals with prohibition of advertisement of cigarette and other tobacco products only. No person, who is engaged in the production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or other products 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 I Crt P \o tt2 of 2020 1. t h every package of cigarette or tobacco product contains a specit ( I waming (pictorial or otherwise). Section - 4 of the COTP Act, brLI s smoking in public places. In addition, Section - 6 of the COTP Ac , prohibits the sale of cigarettes or other tobacco products to a per:( 1 who is under the age of 18 years are in an area within 100 yards I f any educational institution.

31. A reading of this Act, particularly Sections - 4, 5, 6 an,.l 7 clearly shows that there is no general ban or general prohibition on I : manufacture/sale oftobacco products. 22 \*hat is barred is merell' I : sale ofthese products to a persorl, who is below the age of 18 yer ; and in an area within 100 yards of an educational institution. ll: other aspects covered by Scctions - 5 and 7 of the COTP Act. d ) [ with the advertisement and lhe waming, which is to be containccl ort t package, in which the tobacco product is packed. This is a regulatt r mechanism only. Therefore, according to this Court, the above srLi I allegations of transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase t I banned tobacco products will not attract the offence under Section -' of the COTP Act.

32. As far as Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act is concerncrl. z r stated above, the allegations against the petitioner in respecttl : I complaints / charge sheets are that they were transporting, possessir 1 . storing, selling and purchasing the banned tobacco products to th ) customers illegally in order to gain wrongful profits. In view of tt , said allegation, it is apt to refer to Section - 20 (Z) of the COTI' I r . i l#$&;e I fE-Ei-,- ; 31 KL.J Crt-P No.l5 2 of 2020 & bat.h for better appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question, and the same is as under; "20. Puuishmeut for failure to waruing and nicotile and tar conteuts._ (t) . give specilied (2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do oot contain either on the package or on their label, the specified wamiag and the nicotine and tar contenLs sha[ in the case of fust convictiou be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extetrd to one thousand rupees, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonrnent for a temr which may exteod to two years and with hne which may extend to three thousand rupees.,,

33. Thus, Section - 20 ofCOTp 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 in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified waming on the said products. Inviewof the same, the contents of the complaints / charge sheets lack the ingredients of Section _ 20 (Z) 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 thq s_aid offence against the petitioners is not only contrary to Section - 20 (2) of COTp Act, bur also contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera. In view ofthe same, the offence under Section - 20 (2) of COTp Ac is also liable to be quashed against the petitioners. I once again reiterat6 that I agree with the t 32 K1,. C1LP No. t t2 oI 2020 & bdtu" principle laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court o AndhraPradeshinChiduralaShyamsubdera,SriJaganatlt Enterprisess and V' Nageswara Raolr'

34. For the foregoing discussion and the authoritative principle of law, Criminal Petition Nos' 3768' 3879' 4046' 4077 ' 4098' 409') 4100, 4102, 414t,4151,4t57,4lB2' 4t87' 4247', 4249' 4251' 425l 4262, 4277, 440s, 44t5, 4542, 46t5', 4640', 4681' 472'7', 4775 atv 4825 of 2O2l ate allowed quashing the proceedings against tr petitioners therein in the rcspective crimes mentioned therein' Sinc I the proceedings in the aforesaid Criminal Petitions are quashe I against the respective petitioners' the respective Station Hottl : Offrcers / Investigating Officers are hereby directed to retum I e seized property / vehicles on proper identifrcation and verihcatiolf ownership under due acknowledgmeot'

35. Further, Criminal Petition Nos 152'153' 155' 162 & 53 )6 of 2020,3498, 3500, 3509,3514' 4070' 4110' 4119' 4140' 4 '8' 4194. 4216, 4230, 4361, 4612' 4622 and 4632 of 2021 are a so allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners therein irL he respective Calendar Cases mentioned therein' Since the procee( i rgs are quashed, the respective petitioners are at liberty to file approt r ate applications before the concerned Magistrate for rehrrn of the s: led property / vehicle and the Magistrate shall consider the sanl in accordance with law' a 33 C.l P No.l52 of2020 & tutch . As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all the j Criminal Petitions shall stand closed. 05ru JULY,2o2l I[g]!9: L.R. copy to be marked @/O.) Mgr K. LAKSHMAAI, J I