Reddy Counsel representing Sri BALA MURALI Y, Advocate for the v. Jithendar Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the

*TEEEON'BLE .SRI K. LAKSEMAN + 7o Delivered on: 05-07 -2A21 Between in CrLP. No.I52 of 2020: # Mr. Mohd. Jameel Ahmed -: l Vs. $ The State of Telangana, rep.by public prosecutor High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad & another Pet!tipner Responddnts : Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed Mr. Gajirnaud 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. BalaMurali Mr. Boggula Raju Mr. S. Chandrasekhar Mr. V. Yadukrishna Sainath Respective learned counsel : Learned Public Prosecutor ! For respective Petitioners ^ For Respondents < Gist > Head Note ? Cases Referred l. 2018 ArR(sc) 5348 2. 2016 Cri. L.!.240t 3. 2019 SCCOnline Bom 1857 4. Crl.P. No.373l of 2018 & barcb" decided on 27.0g.2018 5. 2020 (lI,{r,T (crl.) 215 (ApHC) 6.1995(r)scJ277 7. 201 I (2) Crimes 250 8. 2017 SCC Ontine Cal 16323 9. 2002CIL.LJ.2872 10. t992supp(t)SCC335 I l. 2020 Supreme (Ap) 348 12. Criminal Petition No.i323 of2009, decided on 17.09.2009 13. Criminal Petition No.15248 of2016, decided on 26.10.2016 I a 2 .KL,J Crl.P. No. t 52 of 2020 & batch HON'BLE SRI JUSTICP K.LAKSHMAN 4681- 4727.4775 & 4825 0F 2021' COMMON ORDER: All the above Criminal'Petitions are filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners - accused in respective Crimes /CalendarCases.ThedetailsofrelevantCrimes/Calendar Cases, offences alleged, nature of offences etc'' are mentioned in the following tabular form: sl. No. Crl.P No. Crime No.

01. 3768t21 3879Dr A7n0 of PS Manoharabad 33121 of Kadam 7821 of PS (T) Adilabad PS 4$6nr 40ntzl 2lf2l of PS 4098D1 409912r o7. 4l0012t Eassoan l8slzl of PS (r) Nirmal No.36l21 of PS Koutala No.38/21 of PS Easgoan

08. 4t02r2r 455121 of PS Kukatpally 4t4ltzr 45nl of PS 4l5ll2r 4157l2l

13. 4r82f2r 4t87nl ChiragpallY $8m of PS ChoutupPal ll4l2l of PS Chityal (NLG) 74t21 zOZAt or rS 611 Mancherial 02-

03. M.

09. I0. ll. Accused Number accused accused AL &2 accused Alto3 accused accused accused Alto3 accused Alto4 Al &2 accused Offences altegedly committed itz, ztl tPc u 20 (21 rlw 1(2\ ot COTPA 270 &273 lPc -do- -do- 270,273 lPc & 20 (2) ofCOTPA 270 &273 lPc 270 &273 IPC 273 & 188 -336, IPC & 59 (i) of FSSA 270 &271 wc & 20(2) rlw 7(21 of COTPA & &271 20 (2) ofCOTPA 272,273 & t28 rPC&20(I)&7 (3) ofCoTPA 270&273 PC -do- Nature ofoffence Transportation o f Amber tobacco Sale Possession ofgutka itobacco in Trarsportation of jossession of tobacco oroducts in the house Possession ofbanned gutka & other tobacco items iu oan shop Transportation and sale ofprohibited tobacco Transportation of tobacco producs Storage oftobacco. products for sale- Purchase and sale of tobacco Transponation of banned obacco/gutka Possession \ a a 3 .KLJ Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020 & bdtch

14. 4247tzt

16. t'l

18. 4249Dt .425tDt 4258Dl 4262n1

19. A77DL

20. 2t. D.

24. 4405Dt 44$rzt 4542t21 46r5t2t 4640t2t

25. 468U21 6112l of PS tr Town Adilabad 10121 of PS I TownAdilabad 9021' of Ps t TownAdilabad 9l2I of PS I Town Aditabad l07l2l of PS I Town Adilabad l6U2l of PS Abdullapurmet 2021 of PS I TownNalsonda 2321 of PS II (T) Nalsonda 87/21 of PS [I (T) Kotbagudun 225121 of PS Nirmal Town 89D0 of PS Mamada l86l2t of PS Peddavoora

26. 472712t 164/21 of PS Adibatla sole i accused, .At.&2 so6 i accused accused At &2 Al to3 accused accused AL &2 -do- -do- {o- -do- -do- 188,272, 271 & 328 rPC 188,272 & 273 IPC -do- l8E, 269,'270, 27t rlw 34 IPC & 3ofEDA&51 (b) of DMA At &2 270 &273 tPC AI A2 A2 -do- r/w 34 IPC 328 ilw 511,2'12 &273 tPC 270,272 & 273 IPC & 2O (2) of COTPA 328,272, 273 & I88 TPC 328,270 & 273 r/w 5ll IPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA Possession of banricd gutka oroducts ' Sale ofgutka aod tobacco nrodircti About to traoqi<irt noxious gu. tka a[d . tobacco oroducts Sale ofbarmed gutka and tobacco oroducts Transportation of gutka and lobacco producb Sale of banned tobacco (tambak") products in Tra4sportation of putka/tobaeco oibdticts Possession.ofbaoried outka /tobacco oroducts Possession oftoliasco products in kirana stnp Possession of prohibited tobacco oroducts for sale Transpo(ation of banned tobacco/sutka pockets Possession ofbanned gutka & tobacco oroducts in kirana shon Transportation of cigarctte or ottler tobacco products without valid license Sale of gutka &{iaini Transportation of banned 27 4775D1

28. 4825m 214121 of PS I (Tl Nalsonda 245D1 of PS Khammam (R) Al to4 Al &2

29. rs2D0

30. .t53120

31. r55D0

32. t6u20

33. 5826120

34. 3498Dl

35. 3500Dr 35l5ll9 of I.AJMFC, .Waransal 2T24ll9 of XVTI ACMM, Hyd.' 3518/I9 of I-AJI1IFC, Waransal 4737118 of )(I AMM, Sec.bad Special . Magistrate of [I Class, Iastial 216D0 . of JFCI,{, f)evarkonda 961119 of JFCI\A Miryalguda CALENDAR CASES A2 A2 A3 A2 270, 273 & 188, 420 IPC & 58 of FSSA 272 & 273 IPC & 59 of FSSA_ 2006 420, 270 & 27' DC & 58 ofFSSA 272,273,336 & 420 tPc & 20 (2) of COTPA Transportation of barmed zarda poducts Sale ofzarda illegally Transporation of banned zarda Sale ofprohibited gu&a and chewing tobacco products At &2 188, 270 & 271 IPC Transportation of Amber gutka pockets At &2 420 TPC & 273 Alto4 420 & 273 rPc & 20 (ii) of corPA.2oo3 Sale ofbanned tobacco and gutka Products ' Transportation of tobacco and sutka oroducts .t i t 4 KL.J Crl.P. No.I52 of 2020 &tutch 188, 270 & 273 rPC, 20 (z)of COTPA, 3 ofEDA & 5l (b) of DMA t88,270, 273 & 420 {PC & 20 (2) of COTPA 272 & 273 tPc & 20 Q) rlw 7 (2) of COTPA 270 & n3 DC & 20 (2) rlw 7 (21 of COTPA 270,27t, 272 &273 rlw14 IPC Sec.3 of EDA 272 & 273 IPC & Sec.20 (l), 20 (2) of COTPA .270 &273 tPc &20(2) ofCOPTA t88, 272 & 273 IPC &20 (2)&5of COTPA 270 & 273 tPc & 20 (21 ofCOTPA Storage ofbanned gutka ald other tobacco products illegally for sale Supply ofgutka and other tobacco products Transportation of Amber tobacco Transporatiou of pan masala and banned gutka Traasportation of cotton seeds and banned gutka Transportation o f banned tobacco and gutka Purchase and sale ofbanned gutka Sale oftobacco products in his shop and disobeying the rule5 imposed by Gow. in Not.No.505/FSS -l m dL6 -1.21 Transportation of Amber gutka At &2 't Alto5 Al to4 At &2 sole ' accused accuscd At &2 At &2 -do- Transportation of gutka/pan masala At &2 270 &273 tPC Possession of tobacco products illegally for sale Sole accused At &2 A3 -do- -do- Purchase and sale ofpmhibited guka pockes Possession ofgutka stand for sale packets at bus illegally -do- r/w 34 IPC&20(2) ofCOTPA Transportation of banned tobacco . products .

36. 3509r2t 45Tn of )off MMC, Ibrahimpatan At &z 37 35t4nt 63U19 of XXV MMC, Ibnhimpatau Alto8 4070n1

39. 4ttoDt

40. 4tt9t2r 4l 4t40t2t

42. 4t78Dt

43. 4D4m

44. 42L6nt

45. 4230r2t

46. 436tt2t

47. 46tU2t

48. 4622121

49. 4632tZL 547D1 of PJMFC, Gajwel 5Wn0 of Spl.PCR Mobile Court-cum- JMFC, Adilabad 512f20 of Spl.PCR Mobile Court+um- JMFC, Adilabad sTc No.20/21 of tV AMM- cum-fV AJCJ, L.B. Nasar 8l0l2l of IAIMFC, Khammam 6L67f2l of XVII ACMM, Nanrpally t298t2t PJIyIFC, Khammam 8292;L PJMFC, Khammam rc8f21 of AJMFC, ){sifabad $3120 of AJMFC, Nirmal 62419 of AJMFC, , Nirrtal 413D0 of AJMFC, Nirmal.

2. Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthy, Mr. K. Surender,. Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Ms. p. Radhika, L a 5 I KL.T Crl.P No. I 52 of 2020 & batch Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti, Ms-iQ. Srrnitha Kumari, Mr. Kondadi .i diay Kum.ar, Mr. S.M. Sublan, lrits. N. Arthi, Mr. Y. Bala Murali, Mr. Boggula Raju, IvIr. S. Charrdrasekhar, Mr. V. Yadulaishna : Sainath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondents - State.

3. The question involved in all the above matters is one and the same and, therefore, the same are disposed of by way of this common 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 I khaini I zarda/ pan mas6la respectively. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections - 188, 270,269,271,272,273,328, 336 & 42O read with 34 and 511 of the Indian Pena[ Code, 1860 (for short '[PC'); Sections - 20 (l), 20 (2) and 5 read with (2) and 7 (3) of the Cigarettes. and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advenisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, 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) respectively. t t 5 i 6 KL,J Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 &batch 5- The respective leamed rcounsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the above criminat petitions would submit that the contents of complaint / charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused. For the offences under the provisions of FSS Act, only Food Safety Offrcer is having power to initiate criminal proceedings against accused and the police are not having any power to register a case for the offences under the provisions of FSS Act. There is no inducement by the petitioners and, therefore, offence under Section - 420 of IPC does not arise. According to them, the contents of complaidt / charge sheet are also lacking the ingredients of the offences under Sections - 269,270,271, 272,273,128 and 336 of IPC. i) According to them, there is no violation of Sections - 20 (!), 20 (2) and 5 read with 7 (2) and 7 (3) of the COTP Act. The Investigating Officers / Complainants without following the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), have registered the cases for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC and laid charge sheet against the accused. Necessary ingredients to attract the provisions of Section - 3 of the ED Act and Section - 5l (b) of the DM Act are lacking in the complainr I charge sheet. i0 With the above said submissions, the respective;learned counsel sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid'crimes / calendar cases. i I t r t -l 7 KLJ Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 & batch

6. on the other hand, leamet public prosecutor referring to the principle laid down in the state o,f Mafarashtra v. sayyed Eassan sayyed subhanl by the Hon'bre supreme court and in Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao v. The state of Maharashtra2 and Anand Ramd.hani 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, corp Act, ED Act and DM o:r, There is no irregularity in registering crimes, seizing material . including the vehicles and laying charge sheet against respective accused in the aforesaid crimes / calendar chses. According to him, the accused were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku I gutka I 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. i) with the'above said submissions, learned public prosecutor sought to dismiss the above criminal petitions. ln vi-e1 of the above rival submissions, it is apposite to extract the relevant provisions of [pc, corp Act, FSS Act, ED Act and DM Act, which are as under: 2018 ArR(sc) 534E 2016 Cri. L.l.24OL 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1857 i t a 8 KL.J Crl.P. No-152 of 2020 &htch RELEVANT PROVISIONS I'IYDER IPC , *188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by pubtic servant.-Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, sha[, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished *ftJfu simple imprisonment for a terrn which may extend to one month or wiih fIne which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or teuds to cause a riot or affray, 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. Explanation.-It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience.as-. likely to produce harm. It is suffrcient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly {isobeys the order, and thereby sau5ss danger ofriot. A has committed the offence def,rned in this section." "269. Negligert act likety to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.-Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or hzrs reason to believe to be, likbly to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to. life, shall be punished with imFrisonment of either dpscription for a term which may extend to six mouths, or with fine, or with both." I "270. Matignant act likety to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.-Whoever malignantly does any act which a 9 KL.J Crl.P. No. I 52 ol 2020 & batch ! is, and which he knows or has ieason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any aii"*" d,ngerous to life, shall be punished qrift imprisonment Of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." "271. Disobedience to quarantine rule.-Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Government for putting any vessel into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessels, or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places, shatl be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six montbs, or with fine, or with both." "272. Adulteration of food or drink int'ended 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 drinh 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 rupees, or with both." "273. Sale of noxious food or drink.-Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, 4ny 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 tenn which may extend to sk months, or with Frne which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." "328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commii an offence.-Whoever ad,ministers to or causes to be taken by any pemon any poison or any stuperying, intoxicating . or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with htent 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 t l0 KL.I Crt.P. No.l52 of 2020 & batch either description for a term whi0h may extend to ten years' and shall also be liable to frne'- "336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others'- Whoeverdoesanyactsorashlyornegligentlyastoeudauger human life or the persotral safery of others' shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and frffy rupees' or with both'" *420. Cheating and dishouestly inducing delivery of property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person' or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or' sealed' and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security' shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a tenn which may extend to seven years' and shall also be liable to Frne." "34. Acts done by several persons in furthera-uce of common intention.-When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all' each of such persons is liabte for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." ..5ll.Punishmentforattemptingtocommitoffences punishable with imprisonment for life' or other imprisdnment'-Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence o be committed' and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for-thepunishmentofsuchattempt,bepunishedwith imprisonment of any description provided for the offenc": t.1-" term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of impriSon- ment provided for that offence' or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both'" rL t i a i i ! i: I I ! KL.J Crl. P. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch ' prohibltion of "a""rl""meni of cigarettes and other .uS. tobacco products.{l) No ipersbn engaged in, or purported to be engaged in the productiol, supply or distribution ofcigareffes or any other tobacco products shall advertise and no person having contror over a medium shalr cause to be advertised cigarettes or any other 0obacco products through that medium and no person shall take part in any advertisement which directly or indirectly suggests or promotes the use or consumption ofcigarettes or any other tobacco products. (2) No person, for any direct or indirect pecuniary beneFrt, shall- (a) display, cause to display, or perrnit or authorise to dispray any advertisement ofcigarettes or ary other tobacco productl oi (b) sell or cause to sell, or permit or authorise to sell a film or video tape containing advertisement of cigarette, o. oth". tobacco product; or (c) disfibute, cause to distribute, or pennit or authorise to distribute to the public any leaflet, trana_titt or document which is or which contains an advertisement of cigarette. o, uoy oin", tobacco product; or (d) erect, exhibit, Fx or retain upon or over any land, building, wall hoarding, frame, post or btructure or upon or in anyvehicl-e or shall display ir nuurner whatsoevlr io aoy piu." *f advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco p-au"t, "oy "oy n l a Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in relation to_ (a) an advertisement ofcigarettes or any other tobacco product in or on a package containing cigarettes or any other iobacco product; (b) advertisement.of cigarettes or any other tobacco product which is displayed at the entrance or inside a warehouse or a shop whae cigarettes and any other tobacco producS are ofGred for distribution or sale. (3) No person, shall, under a contract or otherwise promote or agree to promote the use or consumption of_ (a) cigar_ettes or any other tobacco product; or (b) any trade mark or brand oame of cigarettes or :rny other tobacco product in exchangs for a sponsorship, gifq pdze or scholarship given or agreed to be given by unotnlr persoo.,, "20. Punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents.- (l) Any person who produces or manufactures cigarettes or tobacco products, which do not contain, either on the package or t2 KLJ Crl.P. No.l52 ol N20 & batch Y/arning and the nicotine and tar on their label, the specified contents, shatl in the case of fust conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both, and for the second or subsequent cotrvictioo, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with f,rne which may extend to ten thousand rupees. (2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar cootents shatl in the case of first coaviction be punishable with imprisonment 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 imprisoriment for a term which may exte.nd to two years and with f,rne which may extend to three thousand rupees." "7. Restrictions ou trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco products.- (l) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, supply or distribute 6 cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him bears thereon, or on its label such specified warning including a pictorial waming as may be prescribed. (2) No person shall carry on trade or commerce h cilarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package ofcigarettes or any other tobacco products sold, supplied or distributed by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified warning. (3) No person shall import cigarettes or any other tobacco products for distribution or supply for a valuable consideration or for-saie in India unless every package of cigarettes or aoy othei tobacco products so imported by him bears thereon, or on its label, the specified waming. (a) The specified warning shall appear on not less than one of the largest panels of the package in which cigarettes or any other' L t_ l. I ,I l3 KL.T CrI.P. No.l 52 of 2020 & batch I iobacco products have been paqked for distributiou, sale or supply for a valuable consideration. .: (5) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, supply or distribute cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed by him indicates thereon, or on its label, the nicotine and tar contents on each cigarette or as the case may be on other tobacco products along with the maximum permissible liinits thereof: Provided that the nicotine and tar contents shall not exceed tde maximum permissible quantity thereof as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act." RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER F.S.S. Act: ('58. Penalty for contraventious for which.no specific penalty 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 separately provided in this Chapter, shalt be liable to a penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees." "59. Punishment.for unsafe-food.-Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufachrres for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,- (i) where such f4ilure or contravention does not result-in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to iix months and also wiih fine which may exteod to one lakh rupees; (ii) where sueh 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) whsre such failure or contravention results in a grievous iryury, ;vith imprisonment for a term 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, imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life aod also with fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees-" I t l a i ,i ,t .: l: I I l4 KL.J Crl.P- No.l52 of 2020 & batch RELEVANT PROVISION TJNDER E.D. ACT: "3. PenalQr. Any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have co--itted an i offence punishable under section 188 of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860 )." RELEVANT PROVISION T'hIDER D.M. ACT: "51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.- (l) Whoever, without reasonable cause- (l) Whoever, without reasonable cause-" (a) obstructs any offrcer or employee of the Central Government or the State Govemment, or a person authorised by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the discharge of his functions under this Act; or (b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Ceutral Govemment or the State Covernment or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with Frne, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereofl, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a tenn which may extend to two years. notes oo clauses Clauses 5l to 58 (Secs. 5l to 58) seeks to lay down what will coustitute an offence in terrrs of obstruction of the functions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of false warning, failure of an officer to perform the duty imposed on him under the Act without due permission or lawful excuse, or his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act- The clauses also provide for penalties for these offences."

8. The /rs.involved in the present petitions is no more res integra. A leamed Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telanganan had an occasion to deal with the issues involved in the present criminal petitions. After referring to various provisions of tPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts t. Crl.P. No.373 I of20l8 & batch decided on 27.08.2018 It , l5 KLJ Crt.P. No.l 52 of 2020 & btch I in several judgments, the learned single Judge had framed the issues, I which are as trnder: i '"1) Whether the respondent/ Sub-lnspector of Police' is competent to investigate into the offence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(l) of FSS ACt? 2)Whetherthepetitionersinallthepetitionsarefoundcommittingany actwithmaliciousintention,withknowledgeandreasontobelievethat such act likely to spread the infection dfany disease dangerous to life? And whether the petitioners selling or offering or exposing for sale as food or drinlg any article which has besn rendered or has become noiious or is in a state unFrt for food or drink or reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink? [f so, are they liable to be proceeded for the offence punishable under Sections 270 arrrd 273 IPC.?'' g.Afteranelaboratediscussionandonconsiderationof. various aspects, the learned Singte Judge has held that the police cannot take cognizance of the offence, to investigate into "nd-fit" chargesheetagainsttheaccusedthereinfortheoffencepunishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (1) of FSS Act, as they were not empowered under the said Act to launch the prosecution, but only Food Safety oflicer apppinted by the Government alone is competent to launch prosecution for those two offences.. with the said findings, 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 learned Single Judge furtlier held that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the 'food' within the definition of section - 3(i) of the FSS Act and the manufacture, sale or tI l t 4 a l6 KL,J Crl.P. No.l52 of2020 & batch exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is governed by the provisions of COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the provisions of tpC. The respondents - police are incompetent to investigate the offence punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) 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 - 273 of IPC since transportation of noxious food is not included under Section - 273 of IPC. The act done by the accused therein i.e., transportation of khaini and chewing tobacco though dangerous to * human [ife, 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 by itself is not an offence under Section - 270 of tPC. pan Masala is not a tobacco I i I I product to fall within the purview of corp Act. Therefore, the provisions of the corP Act have no application, thereby registration of crime on the ground of violation of Sections - 7 (D (2) (3) (5) and section - 26 of eorP Act is an itlegatiry. The rearned single Judge fuither held that registration of cases for the offence under Section - 20 (2) read with 7 (2) of corP Act is iltegal. wirh the said findings, the learned Single Judge has quashed the crimes and calendar cases in the said judgment. !I a t7 KL'I Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 & fuich I l. In Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasadhi TriPati Rao i I v. The State of Andhra Pradeshsl a tearned Single Judge of the High court of Andhra Pradesh at ,Amdravti had atso an occasion to deal with the said issue. After referring to the contentions of the respective parties therein, various provisions of tPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and relying on the principle taid down in Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia3, Joseph Kurian v. State of Kerala6, Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr, IWs. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., v. State of U.P.7' Sanjay Anjay Stores v- Union of Indias, Boop Singh Tyagi v' Statee, State of Haryana v. Bhdjan Lalro and Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the learned Single Judge has quashed the FIRs / Calendar Cases. The learned Single Judge referring to the law laid down in Chidurata Shyamsubdera held that despite the said o.itutiue pronouncement of law, status quo continues. The said ".rtt judgment attained finality. Even then, the police are registering cases against accused on the very same allegations for the very same offences. i) Refening to the provisions of Sections - 153' 188,269'270' 27l,272,273,284,328,353ofIPC,thelearnedJudgeinSri 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 s. zozo 1ty ALT (crl.) 215 (APHc) 6. tess 1t; scr277 '. zott 121 Crimes 250 t. 2017 SCC Online cal 16323 e- zoozcrt.LJ.zSlz ro. 1992Supp(1)SCC335 I 5 l ! 18 . KL.J Crl.P. No.l 52 of 2020 & batch i circumstances only where there is violation of Sections 4,5,6,7 and 10 of the COTP Act By referring to the principle laid : down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lallo and IWs. Pepsico lndia Holdings (Pvt) Ltd.7, the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings in various crimes / calendar cases.

12. Another learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in V. Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradeshrr had also an occasion to deal with the said issue and agreed with the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera.

13. In Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhant, the Apex Court while dealing with legality of the order passed by the Bombay High court in a batch of criminal writ petitions and criminal applications, which were filed challenging the registration of FIRs for the offences under Sections - 188, 272,273 and 328 of IPC and Sections - 26 and 30 of the FSS Act where there is an allegation of transportation hnd sale 6f Gutka / Pan Masala etc., held that the judgment of Bombay High court is contrary to the provisions of the Act and law laid down by it. with the said finding, the Apex court remitted the matter to the Bombay High court for fresh consideration on the issue that whether the aforesaid offences are made out in the FIRs, which are subject matter of the cases pending before the Bombay High Court rr. 2020 Suprcme (Ap) 3a8 !l lr! Li l!l t l a --l l9 KL,J Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch

14. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law in the aforesaid judgments, as discussed above, coming to the facts of the .i 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 I zatda / pan masala etc., respectively. tn Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the leamed Single observed that transportation of chewing tobacco or kfiaini or pan masala do not constitute an offence punishable under Section - 270 of IPC and that manufacturing of pan masala is not included in Section - 273 of IPC and, therefore, the same is not an offence since it is not a noxious food. The learned 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 adutterates any article of food or drink. Therefore, the said section would only come into play if food or drink is adulterated- There is no definition of 'adulteration' in IPC. The definition of .adulterant' is found in the provisions of the FSS Act. Section - 3 (1) \ L. l a 20 KL.J Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 & tutch (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulterant' which means a material which could make the 'food' unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded. : According to Section - 272 of IPC, if a material is used to make the food unsafe/sub-standard or mis-branded, then only the offence would be attracted. Whereas, as discussed supra, the allegation in the present batch of cases is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini I zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the said allegation does not fall within the ambit of Section - 272 of tPC. Therefore, I agree with the principte laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raotl-

16. In Joseph Kurian6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for Section - 272IPC to be attracted, the following should be present. !\. (l) That the article involved was food and drink meant to be consumed by live.persons; (2) that the accused adilierated it and the adulteration rendered it noxious as a 'food or drink'; (3) that the accused knew at the time of adulteration that he would sell the article as food or drink and knew that such article cannot be.sold as food or drink. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the offence ib completed on the introduction of the adulterant. 'Adulterant' would mean that a material which is mixed to make the 'food' unsafe or drink unsafe. In the present case on hand, tobacco is not a food or : i 'i I i I I i I I 2t KL.J Crl-P. No.l52 ol2020 & futch . drink and what i! stated to be miied in it is not clearly established by any coge-nt material as an 'adulterant' for the offence under Section - 272IPC to be pressed into service. 17 - As far as Section - 328 of tPC is concerned, in the same judgment it was held as follows: "10. [o order to prove offence. under Section 328 the prosecutiou is required to prove that the substauce in question was a poison, or aoy stupeffing, intoxicating or unwholesome drug etc, that the accused administered the substance to the complainatrt or caused the complainant to take such substance, that he did so with intent to cause hurt or knowing it to be likely 19 that he would thereby cause hurt, or with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence. lt 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 sa[e, 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 believd 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 &ink" any article which has become noxious or is in a state of unfit for "food or drink". Thus, the said section would apply, when an article which has become noxious or which has been rendered noxious. It also applies to food or drink only. 'As held in Sri Jaganath Enterprisess, the word 'noxious' is not defined in t t n l ;J - -- -'---,1 22 KLJ Crt.P. No.l52 of 2020 & btch [PCorinFssAct.Asperthedictionarymeaning,theword.noxious' is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc' As stated above' the allegation in the entire batch of present criminal petitions is with regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini I zarda I pan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court' the contents of the complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients of'Section - 273 of lPC.

19. As far as section - 188 IPC is concerned , as per the settled law on the subject, before an accused is charged, there must be; an order duly promulgated by the public servant; the public seryant must have the tawfut authority to promulgate the order; the person flouting the same should have knowledge about the order directing him to abstain from the act; he must disobey the said order with the knowledge; and such disobedience of the duly promulgated order should cause a danger to the hu.rnan tife etc. tn Boop Singh Tyagie a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court hetd that right to promulgate the ordinance/order is also an issue which is being raised, because under the FSS Act, the Commissioner of Food Safety alone has the authority to pass the orders only if the article of 'food' can causes danger or is injurious to health \ D n ; ! . KL.J Crt.P. No.l52 of 2020 &batch 23 i

20.InN.T.RamaRaov.tbestateofA.P.,rep.byPublic prosecutorl2 while deating with the offences under Sections - 188 :, i and283,oftPC,thelearnedSingle,JudgeofthecombinedHighCourt of Andhra Pradesh held as under: *5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded fot_c1nd1cltn8 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 ooly by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District but not by'any of their subordinates- If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act' 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be gtade by the public servant .oo""*"J or some other person to whom such a pubtic servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure' In the present case, the charge sheet was frled by the Sub Inspector of Police' who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore' the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure' ' 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Pqnal 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 -,,:- '

12. Criminal Petition No-5323 of 2@9, decided on 17'09'2009 t n n 24 KLJ Crl. P. No. I 52 of 2020 & tutch independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. [n so far as the obstruction in any public way is concemed, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the lndian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffrc jam caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (l) (a) of Code of Criminal procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due to its unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the l', accused - alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition."

21. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through s.H-o-, p.s. Eruru Rurar, west Godavari Districtl3, wherein by relying.on various judgments including N.T. Rama Raorz and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex court in Bhajan Lalr, more particurarly, guiderine No.6, which says that rr. Criminal Petition No. I 5248 of 20 I 6, decided on 26. I 0.20 I 6 1l * 25 KL.J Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020 & babh : 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 concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, it was held that the proceedings in the said c.c. were qudshed by exercising power under section - 4g2 of cr.p.c. It was also further ; held that the proceedings shalt not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under section - 155 (z) of cr.p.c. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by v.R.o. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (t) (a) of Cr.p.C. zz- vide Notification No.50r/FSS-r/2ozo, dated 06.01 .zozo, the commissioner of Food safety, Telangana Directorate of Institute of Preventive Medicine, public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, restricted the manufacture, It storage, distribution, transportation and sale of gutka / pan masala, which contains tobacco and nicotine, as ingredieirts 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 under FSS Act, 2006. rt is for one year. vide Notification No.5O5ffSS-l/2021, dated 06.01 .2o2r,the same was extended for.one more year. As per the information furnished and instructions received, several writ petitions were filed challenging the said ] I 26 KL.J Crl-P- No.l52 of 2020 & tutch Notifications beflore this Court as,well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A Division Bench of this Court declined to entertain some writ petitions on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court seized of the said issue. [t is also relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded back the matter to this Court. Therefore, such a notification can only be issued for emergency situations and for prohibiting the distribution and sale of any article of a food cannot be lost sight of. Therefore, in view of the taw laid down in the above judgments including the judgments in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, Sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raorr. According to this Court, Section - 188 of IPC will not attract to the allegations leveled against the petitioners herein in this batch of criminal petitions.

23. As far as Section - 328 of IPC is concerned, it deals with causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence. As per the said provision, whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to frne. Therefore, there should be administering poison, intoxicating etc:,.with intent to cause hurt to such person or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will It .* KL.! Crl.P. No. I 52 ol 2020 & batch . 27 ! thereby cause hurt. As stated above;the allegations in the entire batch of criminal petitions are lackin€. Therefore, according to this Courg ; .the contents of the complaints / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of Section - 328 of IPC

24. As flar as Section - 336 of IPC is concerned, it deals with an act endangering life or personal pafety of others, and as per which, whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with impris- onment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and frfty rupees, or with both. [n the complaints I 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 Cou$, th" contents of the complaints / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of Section - 336 of tPC.

25. As far as Section - 420 of IPC is concerned, it deals with Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. There is no such inducement either at the inception or at a later stage. Thus, the contents of complaints / charge sheet lack the ingredients of Section - 420 of IPC. t

26. As far as Section - 269 of IPC is concerned, it deals with negtigent act likety to spread infection of disease dangerous to life, and as per which, whoever untawfully or negligently does any act t t l a 28 KL,J Crl-P. No.l52 of 2020 & tutch F t i i i I I I I I I i I I which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished j with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with Ftne, or with both. But, a perusal of the contents of complaints / charge sheets in the present batch of cases, such ingredients are lacking and, therefore, Section - 269 of [PC does not arise in the present batch ofcases.

27. [n view of the above said discussion, according to this Court, transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of tobacco products are not totally banned in the State of Telangana and also in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sections - 269, 270,27L,272 and 273,328,336 and 420 of IPC are attracted to the cases in this batch.

28. As far as the offences under FSS Act is concemed, as L!. already discussed above, in Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the learned Single Judge following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Co\urt in Bhajan Lalto held that the police are incompetent to take cognizance ofthe offences punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (l) of the FSS Act, investigating into the offences along with other offences.under the provisions of the IPC. It was further held that filing charge sheet is a grave illegality, as the Food Safety Offrcer alone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet'following the Rutes laid down under Sections - 41 and 42 of FSS Act. In the present case, the police have registered the crime for the offences 29 KLT Crl.P. No.l52 of 2020 & batch -:r. under Sections - 188, 270 and.273. of [PC. Therefore, in the preseat batch of caseS, entertaining the complaints / filing the charge sheets by the police is contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera.

29. With regard to the offences under COTP Act, it is relevant to mention the objects and the feasons 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 therewiih 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 define tobacco products- Pan masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the definition of tobacco products. Section., 5 of the COTP Act deals wittr 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 shatl be a part of any advertisemerit.

30. Section - 7 of the COTP Act deals with the imposition of restriction on the sa[e, trade, commerce of tobacco products unless t t- t a CrLP. No.l52 of2020 & batch every package of cigarette or tobacco product contains a specified warning (pictorial or otherwise). Section - 4 of the COTP Act, bans smoking in public places. tn addition, Section - 6 of the COTP Act, prohibits the sale of cigarettes or other tobacco products to a person who is under the age of 18 years are in an area within 100 yards of any educational institution.

31. A reading of this Act, particularly Sections - 4, 5,6 aodT clearly shows that there is no general ban or general prohibition on the manufacture/sale of tobacco products. 22 What is barred is merely the sale of these products to a person, who is below the age of 18 years and in at area within 100 yards of an educational institution. The other aspects covered by Sections - 5 and 7 of the COTP Act, deal with the advertisement and the warning, which is to be contained on a package, in which the tobacco product is packed. This is a regulatory mechanism only. Therefore, according to this Court, the above said allegations oftransportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned tobacco products will not attract the offence under Section -7 of the COTP Act.

32. As far as Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act is concerned, as stated above, the allegations against the petitioner in respective complaints I charge sheets are that they were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned tobacco products to the customers illegally in order to gain wrongful profits. [n view of the said allegation, it is apt to refer to Section - 20 (2)of the COTP Act t a 3l KL,J Crl.P. No.I 52 of 2020 & batch for better appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question, and the same is as under: *20. Punishment for failure to give specified waruing and nicotine and tar contents.- (l)... (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 waming and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand 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 which may extend to tbree 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 in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products. [n view of the same, thp contents of the complaints / charge sheets lack the ingredients of Section - z0 (z) ot the corP Act. Even, there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain labels with statutory warning. Thus, registering the crimes ".lo: $id offence against the petitioners is not only contrary to section - 20 (2)of corP Act, but also contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdero. [n view of the same, the, offence under Section - 20 (2) of corP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioners. I once again reiterata that I agree with the t t- t_ l a 32 KLJ Crl.P. No.l 52 of 2020 & batch principte laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra pradesh in chidurara shyamsubdera, sri Jaganath Enterprisess and V' Nageswara Raolr'

34.Fortheforegoingdiscussionandtheauthoritativeprinciple of [aw, Criminal Petition Nos' 3768' 3879' 4046' 4077' 4098' 4099' 4247' 424g', 4251' 4258' 4100, 4102 ,4141,4151,4157,4182,4187' 4262, 4277, 4405,4415' 4542, 4615' 4640', 4681 4825 of 2021 are allowed quashing the proceedings against the ', 4727', 4775 and petitionersthereinintherespectivecrimesmentionedtherein.Since theproceedingsintheaforesaidCriminalPetitionsarequashed against the respective petitioners' the respective Station House Officers / tnvestigating Officers are hereby directed to retum the seized property / vehicles on proper identification and verifrcation of ownership under due acknowledgment'

35. Further, Criminal Petition Nos' 152' 153' 155' 162 & 5826 of 2020, 3498, 3500, 3509, 3514' 4070' 4110' 411'9' 4140' 4178' 4194, 4216,4230, 436L, 4612,4622 and 4632 of 2021 are also allowedquashingtheproceedingsagainstthepetitionersthereininthe respective Calendar Cases mentioned therein' Since the proceedings are quashed, thi respective petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate applications before the concerned Magistrate for return of the seized property / vehicle and the Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law t D a 33 KLJ Crl.P. No. I 52 of 2020 & batch . As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all the Criminal Petitions shall stand closdd. i osrE JULY,zozl Note: L.R. copy to be marked. (B/o.) Mer K. LAKSHMAN, J t t i a t