Telangana High Court
C.Naveen Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3573 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.41 of
2021 on the file of Kulcharam Police Station, Medak District,
against the petitioner. The petitioner herein is the sole
accused in the above said crime. The offences alleged against
him are under Sections 270 and 273 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').
2. 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.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the allegations levelled against the petitioner lack the
ingredients of the aforesaid offences and, therefore, he sought
to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. In support of
the same, he 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.
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."
. Crl.P. No.3731 of 2018 & batch, decided on 27.08.2018
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 retails to get more
profits illegally. In view of the above said decision, the
contents of the complaint lack 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 - accused.
7. As far as Section 20 (2) of the COTP Act is
concerned, as stated above, the allegation against the
petitioner is that he 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."
8. 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 he 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 he 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.
9. In view of the above discussion, the present Criminal
Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in Crime No.41 of
2021 on the file of Kulcharam Police Station, Medak District,
are hereby quashed against the petitioner - accused.
10. Since the proceedings in the aforesaid case are
quashed against the petitioner - accused in Crime No.41 of
2021, the Station House Officer, Kulcharam Police Station,
Medak District, is directed to return the seized property, along
with crime vehicle, 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
Date: 30.04.2021
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. TJMR
