Telangana High Court
Ponugupati Veerabhadram ... vs Sub Inspector Of Police, And ... on 28 April, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
I.A.No.2 of 2021
In/And
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3673 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.687 of 2021 on the file of I
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, against the
petitioner. The petitioner herein is sole accused in the above said
crime. The offences alleged against him are under Sections - 270 and
273 of IPC. The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 for return
of the seized property.
2. Heard Ms. C. Sunitha Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of respondents. Perused the entire material available on record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner lacks the ingredients of the
aforesaid offences and, therefore, she sought to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner. In support of the same, she has placed reliance
on the judgment in Chidurala Shyamsubder v. 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
4. 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.
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 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. In the present case, the allegation levelled against the
petitioner herein is that he 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 - 270 and 273 of IPC and, therefore, the
proceedings in the aforesaid crime for the said offences are liable to be
quashed against the petitioner herein - accused.
7. In view of the above discussion, the present Criminal
Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.687 of 2021 on the
file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem,
are hereby quashed against the petitioner - accused.
10. I.A.No.2 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner for return of the
seized property. Since the proceedings in the aforesaid crime are
quashed against the petitioner herein - accused in C.C.No.687 of
2021, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the
learned Magistrate for return of the seized property and the learned
Magistrate shall consider the said application in accordance with law,
for return of the seized property on proper identification and
verification of ownership of seized property under due
acknowledgment. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2021 is ordered.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
criminal petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
April 28, 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.)dv
