Telangana High Court
Mohammad Akram vs The State Of Telangana on 8 February, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.18593 of 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
".......to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ
of Mandamus, declaring the registration of Crime
No.69 of 2020 of P.S. Sarangapur, Nirmal District,
pursuant to seizure of Tobacco Products of the
petitioner having knowledge that this Hon'ble Court
suspended the Notification No.501/FSS-1/2020, dated
06.01.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent prohibiting
sale of Tobacco Products, is without having
jurisdiction, as being illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional, in violation of principles of natural
justice and consequently to set aside the same and
direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner
with trade and business carried out in the products
that fall within the notification No.501/FSS-1/2020,
dated 06.01.2020 by the petitioner and pass such
other order orders......"
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader for Home. Perused the record.
2. The petitioner is accused in Cr.No.69 of 2020 of
Sarangapur Police Station, Nirmal District. The offences
registered against him are under Sections 270, 271, 272 and
273 read with 34 of IPC and Section 20 (2) of Cigarette &
Tobacco Product Act, 2003 (for short 'COTPA Act').
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Government Pleader for Home would submit that the subject
matter is squarely covered by a common order in Chidurala
Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana1 rendered by the High
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh, and placed copy of the said
judgment for perusal.
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,
whereas, in the present case, the Police have registered the
crime for the offences under Sections 270, 271, 272 and 273
read with 34 of IPC and Section 20 (2) of COTPA Act.
Therefore, the said proceedings in Crime No.69 of 2020
against the petitioner herein are contrary to the principle held
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Chidurala
Crl.P.No.3731 of 2018 & batch, decided on 27.08.2018
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
Shyamsubder (supra) and, accordingly, the same are liable to
be quashed.
5. In view of the above submission, the present Writ
Petition is allowed in terms of the judgment in Chidurala
Shyamsubder (supra), and the proceedings in Crime No.69 of
2020, pending on the file of Station House Officer,
Sarangapur, Nirmal District, are hereby quashed against the
petitioner/Accused.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the seized property is in the custody of Police,
Sarangapur Police Station and sought direction to the Station
House Officer, Sarangapur Police Station, Nirmal District, to
return the seized property to the petitioner.
7. Since the proceedings in Crime No.69 of 2020 are
quashed against the petitioner/Accused, the Police,
Sarangapur Police Station, Nirmal District, are directed to
return the seized property on verifying the documents with
regard to ownership of the said property. Miscellaneous
petitions, if any, pending in this Petition, shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
Date: 08.02.2021
dv
