Pavan Chaliya Store vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1210 Tel

                   HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

                  CRIMINAL PETITION No.2987 OF 2021

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to

quash the proceedings in Crime No.284 of 2021 on the file of

Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad, against the petitioner. The

petitioner herein is Accused No.1 in the above said crime. The

offences alleged against it are under Sections - 273, 336 and 188

of IPC and Section - 20(2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco

Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade

and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003

(for short 'COTP Act').

Heard Sri Srinivas Reddy Balakisti, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of respondents.

Perused the entire material available on record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

allegations levelled against the petitioner lacks the ingredients of

the aforesaid offences and, therefore, he sought to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner-A.1. In support of the same, he

has placed reliance on the judgment in CHIDURALA

SHYAMSUBDER V/s. STATE OF TELANGANA1 rendered by a

learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

. Crl.P. No.3731 of 2018 & batch, decided on 27.08.2018

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has

tried to distinguish the principle laid down in the said judgment to

the facts of the present case.

Perused the judgment in CHIDURALA SHYAMSUBDER

(supra), wherein a learned Single Judge of the High Court observed

that transportation of chewing tobacco or Khaini or Pan Masala do

not constitute an offence punishable under Section 270 of IPC and

that manufacturing of pan masala is not included in Section - 273

of IPC, and therefore, the same is not an offence since it is not a

noxious food. The learned Single Judge further observed 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."

In the present case, the allegation levelled against the

petitioner herein is that it is purchasing the banned tobacco

products and selling them to retailers to get more profits illegally.

In view of the above said decision, the contents of the complaint

lacks the ingredients of Sections - 273 of IPC and so also Section

336 and 188 of IPC and, therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid

crime for the said offences are liable to be quashed against the

petitioner herein - accused No.1.

As far as Section - 20(2) of the COTP Act is concerned, as

stated above, the allegations against the petitioner is that it is

selling the tobacco products to the customers illegally in order to

gain wrongful profits. In view of the said allegation, it is apt to refer

to Section - 20(2) of the COTP Act 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 warning and nicotine            and tar
          contents.-

          (1) ...

          (2) Any person who sells or distributes

cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar contents shall in 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 three thousand rupees."

Thus, Section - 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for

failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. As

stated above, the allegation against the petitioner herein is that it

purchases tobacco products and sells them to customers at higher

prices to gain wrongful profits. But, in the complaint, there is no

allegation against the petitioner that it is carrying on trade or

commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without

label and specified warning on the said products. In view of the

same, the contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of Section

20(2) of the COTP Act. Even, there is no allegation that the seized

products do not contain labels with statutory warning. Thus,

registering the crime for the said offence against the petitioner is

not only contrary to Section - 20(2) of COTP Act, but also contrary

to the principle laid down in CHIDURALA SHYAMSUBDER

(supra). In view of the same, the offence under Section - 20(2) of

COTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioner -

Accused No.1.

In view of the above discussion, the present Criminal Petition

is allowed, and the proceedings in Crime No.284 of 2021 on the file

of the Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad,

are hereby quashed against the petitioner - Accused No.1.

Since the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed

against the petitioner herein - Accused No.1 in Crime No.284 of

2021, the Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station,

Cyberabad, is directed to return the seized property on proper

identification and verification of ownership of seized property under

due acknowledgment.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

criminal petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K.LAKSHMAN, J 16th APRIL, 2021

Note:

Registry is directed to annex a copy of Common Order, dated 27.08.2018 in Crl.P. No.3731 of 2018 & batch to this order.

(B/o) pgs