Nimmana Nageshwar Rao vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1315 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1315 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 April, 2021

Telangana High Court

Nimmana Nageshwar Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2021

Bench: K.Lakshman

                     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                     CRIMINAL PETITION No.6708 OF 2019
ORDER:

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

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.159 of 2018 on the file of Principal

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar, R.R.District. The

petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 9 in the above said crime. The

offences alleged against them are under Sections - 273, 188, 420 and

374 read with 34 of IPC, 59(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006,

Section 3(k) and Section - 20 (1) 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') and Sections 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice Act.

2. Heard Mr. S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, and

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondents.

Perused the entire material available on record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

allegations levelled against the petitioners lacks the ingredients of the

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

against the petitioners. In support of the same, he has placed reliance on

the judgment in Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana1

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

rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

4. In Chidurala Shyamsubder's case (supra), a learned Single

Judge of the High Court, following the guidelines laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, held that

the Police are incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable

under Sections 45 and 59(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (FSS)

Act, 2006, investigating into the offences along with other offences

under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and filing charge

sheet is grave illegality, as the Food Officer alone is competent to

investigate and to file charge sheet following the Rules laid down under

Sections 41 and 42 of FSS Act.

5. 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

1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335

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."

6. 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.

7. In the present case, the allegations levelled against the

petitioners herein are that they are 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 - 272 and 273 of IPC and so also Section 188,

420 and 374 read with 34 of IPC, therefore, the proceedings in the

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

petitioners herein - accused Nos.1 to 9.

8. As far as Section - 20 (1) of the COTP Act is concerned, as

stated above, the allegations against the petitioners are that they are

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 (1) 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) Any person who produces or manufactures 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 two years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both, and for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees".