Telangana High Court
Kushal Kumar Jaju And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 5 July, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
CORAM:
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.152 OF 2020 & Batch
% Delivered on: 05-07-2021
Between in Crl.P. No.152 of 2020:
# Mr. Mohd. Jameel Ahmed .. Petitioner
Vs.
$ The State of Telangana, rep.by Public Prosecutor
High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad & another .. Respondents
! For respective Petitioners : Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed
Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthy
Mr. K. Surender
Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala,
Ms. P. Radhika
Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti
Ms. C. Sunitha Kumari
Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar
Mr. S.M. Subhan
Ms. N. Arthi
Mr. Y. Bala Murali
Mr. Boggula Raju
Mr. S. Chandrasekhar
Mr. V. Yadukrishna Sainath
Respective learned counsel
^ For Respondents : Learned Public Prosecutor
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Cases Referred :
1. 2018 AIR (SC) 5348
2. 2016 Cri. L.J. 2401
3. 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1857
4. Crl.P. No.3731 of 2018 & batch, decided on 27.08.2018
5. 2020 (1) ALT (Crl.) 215 (APHC)
6. 1995 (1) SCJ 277
7. 2011 (2) Crimes 250
8. 2017 SCC Online Cal 16323
9. 2002 Crl.L.J. 2872
10. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
11. 2020 Supreme (AP) 348
12. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009
13. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.152, 153, 155 & 162 OF 2020 AND 3498, 3500,
3509, 3514, 3768, 3879, 4046, 4070, 4077, 4098, 4099, 4100, 4102, 4110, 4119,
4140, 4141, 4151, 4157, 4178, 4182, 4187, 4194, 4216, 4230, 4247, 4249, 4251,
4258, 4262, 4277, 4361, 4405, 4415, 4542, 4612, 4615, 4622, 4632, 4640, 4681,
4727, 4775, 4825 & 5826 OF 2021,
COMMON ORDER:
All the above Criminal Petitions are filed to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners - accused in respective Crimes
/ Calendar Cases. The details of relevant Crimes / Calendar
Cases, offences alleged, nature of offences etc., are mentioned in
the following tabular form:
Offences
Sl. Crl.P. Accused
Crime No. allegedly Nature of offence
No. No. Number
committed
272, 273 IPC &
01. 3768/21 217/20 of PS sole 20 (2) r/w 7(2) of Transportation of Amber
Manoharabad accused COTPA tobacco
33/21 of PS sole Sale of banned tobacco
02. 3879/21 Kadam accused 270 & 273 IPC products
78/21 of PS (T) Sale of gutka/tobacco
03. 4046/21 Adilabad A1 & 2 -do- illegally in godown
21/21 of PS sole Possession of gutka
04. 4077/21 -do-
Easgoan accused /tobacco in pan shop
270, 273 IPC &
05. 185/21 of PS (T) A1 to 3 20 (2) of COTPA Transportation of
4098/21 Nirmal prohibited gutka
No.36/21 of PS sole 270 & 273 IPC Possession of tobacco
06. 4099/21 Koutala accused products in the house
Possession of banned
07. 4100/21 No.38/21 of PS sole 270 & 273 IPC gutka & other tobacco
Easgoan accused items in pan shop
336, 273 & 188 Transportation and sale
08. 4102/21 455/21 of PS sole IPC & 59 (i) of of prohibited tobacco
Kukatpally accused FSSA products
270 & 273 IPC &
09. 4141/21 45/21 of PS A1 to 3 20(2) r/w 7(2) of Transportation of
Chiragpally COTPA tobacco products
272 & 273 IPC &
198/21 of PS sole Storage of tobacco
10. 4151/21 20 (2) of COTPA
Choutuppal accused products for sale
272, 273 & 328
11. 4157/21 134/21 of PS IPC & 20 (1) & 7 Purchase and sale of
Chityal (NLG) A1 to 4 (3) of COTPA prohibited tobacco
products
74/21 of PS Transportation of banned
12. 4182/21 Raghunadhpalem A1 & 2 270&273 IPC tobacco/gutka
202/21 of PS (T) sole Possession of banned
13. 4187/21 Mancherial accused -do- tobacco products
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
14. 4247/21 61/21 of PS II sole -do- Possession of banned
Town Adilabad accused gutka products
101/21 of PS I Sale of gutka and
15. 4249/21 Town Adilabad A1 & 2 -do- tobacco products
About to transport
90/21 of PS I sole -do-
16. 4251/21 noxious gutka and
Town Adilabad accused tobacco products
91/21 of PS I sole -do- Sale of banned gutka and
17. 4258/21 Town Adilabad accused tobacco products
107/21 of PS I Transportation of gutka
18. 4262/21 Town Adilabad A1 & 2 -do- and tobacco products
19. 4277/21 162/21 of PS 188, 272, 273 & Sale of banned tobacco
A1 to 3
Abdullapurmet 328 IPC (tambaku) products in
lorry
202/21 of PS I sole 188, 272 & 273 Transportation of
20. 4405/21 Town Nalgonda accused IPC gutka/tobacco products
232/21 of PS II sole Possession of banned
21. 4415/21 -do-
(T) Nalgonda accused gutka /tobacco products
188, 269, 270,
87/21 of PS III 273 r/w 34 IPC & Possession of tobacco
22. 4542/21 A1 & 2
(T) Kothagudem 3 of EDA & 51 products in kirana shop
(b) of DMA
225/21 of PS Possession of prohibited
23. 4615/21 Nirmal Town A1 & 2 270 & 273 IPC tobacco products for sale
89/20 of PS -do- r/w 34 IPC Transportation of banned
24. 4640/21 A1
Mamada tobacco/gutka pockets
328 r/w 511, 272 Possession of banned
186/21 of PS
25. 4681/21 A2 & 273 IPC gutka & tobacco
Peddavoora
products in kirana shop
Transportation of
270, 272 & 273
164/21 of PS cigarette or other tobacco
26. 4727/21 A2 IPC & 20 (2) of
Adibatla products without valid
COTPA
license
234/21 of PS I 328, 272, 273 &
27. 4775/21 (T) Nalgonda A1 to 4 188 IPC Sale of gutka & khaini
328, 270 & 273
245/21 of PS A1 & 2 r/w 511 IPC & 20 Transportation of banned
28. 4825/21
Khammam (R) (2) of COTPA gutka
29. 5826/21 298/20 of PS A1 & 2 188, 270 & 273 Transportation of Amber
Dharmapuri IPC gutka pockets
CALENDAR CASES
3515/19 of 270, 273 &
30. 152/20 I-AJMFC, A2 188, 420 IPC Transportation of banned zarda
Warangal & 58 of FSSA products
2724/19 of 272 & 273
31. 153/20 XVII ACMM, A2 IPC & 59 of Sale of zarda illegally
Hyd. FSSA, 2006
3518/19 of 420, 270 &
32. 155/20 I-AJMFC, A3 273 IPC & 58 Transportation of banned zarda
Warangal of FSSA
272, 273, 336
33. 162/20 4737/18 of A2 & 420 IPC & Sale of prohibited gutka and
XI AMM, 20 (2) of chewing tobacco products
Sec.bad COTPA
216/20 of
420 & 273 Sale of banned tobacco and gutka
34. 3498/21 JFCM, A1 & 2
IPC products
Devarkonda
963/19 of
420 & 273
35. 3500/21 JFCM, A1 to 4
IPC & 20 (ii) Transportation of tobacco and
Miryalguda
of COTPA,2003 gutka products
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
188, 270 &
273 IPC, 20
452/20 of
36. (2)of COTPA, Storage of banned gutka and other
XXV MMC,
3509/21 Ibrahimpatan
A1 & 2 3 of EDA & tobacco products illegally for sale
51 (b) of
DMA
632/19 of 188, 270, 273
37. 3514/21 XXV MMC, A1 to 8 & 420 IPC & Supply of gutka and other tobacco
Ibrahimpatnam 20 (2) of products
COTPA
272 & 273
547/21 of
4070/21 IPC & 20 (2) Transportation of Amber tobacco
38. PJMFC, A1 & 2
r/w 7 (2) of
Gajwel
COTPA
509/20 of
Spl.PCR 270 & 273
39. 4110/21 Mobile A1 to 5 IPC & 20 (2) Transportation of pan masala and
Court-cum- r/w 7 (2) of banned gutka
JMFC, COTPA
Adilabad
512/20 of
Spl.PCR 270, 271, 272
40. 4119/21 Mobile A1 to 4 & 273 r/w 34 Transportation of cotton seeds and
Court-cum- IPC banned gutka
JMFC, Sec.3 of EDA
Adilabad
STC
No.20/21 of 272 & 273
41. 4140/21 IV AMM- A1 & 2 IPC & Sec.20 Transportation of banned tobacco
cum-IV (1), 20 (2) of and gutka
AJCJ, COTPA
L.B. Nagar
810/21 of 270 & 273
sole Purchase and sale of banned gutka
42. 4178/21 IAJMFC, IPC & 20 (2)
accused
Khammam of COPTA
188, 272 & Sale of tobacco products in his
6167/21 of
43. 4194/21 sole 273 IPC & 20 shop and disobeying the rules
XVII ACMM,
accused (2) & 5 of imposed by Govt. in
Nampally
COTPA Not.No.505/FSS-1/21,dt.6.1.21
1298/21 of 270 & 273
44. PJMFC, A1 & 2 Transportation of Amber gutka
4216/21 IPC & 20 (2)
Khammam of COTPA
829/21 of
45. 4230/21 PJMFC, A1 & 2 -do- Transportation of gutka/pan
Khammam masala
108/21 of
46. 4361/21 AJMFC, A1 & 2 270 &273 IPC Possession of tobacco products
Asifabad illegally for sale
533/20 of
47. 4612/21 AJMFC, Sole -do- Purchase and sale of prohibited
Nirmal accused guka pockets
622/19 of
Possession of gutka packets at bus
48. 4622/21 AJMFC, A1 & 2 -do-
stand for sale illegally
Nirmal
413/20 of -do- r/w 34
49. 4632/21 AJMFC, A3 IPC & 20 (2) Transportation of banned tobacco
Nirmal of COTPA products
2. Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthy,
Mr. K. Surender, Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Ms. P. Radhika,
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti, Ms. C. Sunitha Kumari, Mr. Kondadi
Ajay Kumar, Mr. S.M. Subhan, Ms. N. Arthi, Mr. Y. Bala Murali,
Mr. Boggula Raju, Mr. S. Chandrasekhar, Mr. V. Yadukrishna
Sainath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective petitioners
and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondents -
State.
3. The question involved in all the above matters is one and the
same and, therefore, the same are disposed of by way of this common
order.
4. The main allegations against the petitioners - accused are
that they were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and
purchasing the banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka /
khaini / zarda / pan masala respectively. The offences alleged against
the petitioners are under Sections - 188, 270, 269, 271, 272, 273, 328,
336 & 420 read with 34 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short 'IPC'); Sections - 20 (1), 20 (2) and 5 read with 7(2) and 7 (3) 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'); Sections -
58 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short 'FSS
Act'); Section - 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (for short 'ED
Act') and Section - 51 (b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for
short DS Act) respectively.
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
5. The respective learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners in the above criminal petitions would submit that the
contents of complaint / charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the
offences alleged against the accused. For the offences under the
provisions of FSS Act, only Food Safety Officer is having power to
initiate criminal proceedings against accused and the police are not
having any power to register a case for the offences under the
provisions of FSS Act. There is no inducement by the petitioners and,
therefore, offence under Section - 420 of IPC does not arise.
According to them, the contents of complaint / charge sheet are also
lacking the ingredients of the offences under Sections - 269, 270, 271,
272, 273, 328 and 336 of IPC.
i) According to them, there is no violation of Sections - 20 (1),
20 (2) and 5 read with 7 (2) and 7 (3) of the COTP Act. The
Investigating Officers / Complainants without following the procedure
laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
'Cr.P.C.'), have registered the cases for the offence under Section -
188 of IPC and laid charge sheet against the accused. Necessary
ingredients to attract the provisions of Section - 3 of the ED Act and
Section - 51 (b) of the DM Act are lacking in the complaint / charge
sheet.
ii) With the above said submissions, the respective learned
counsel sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crimes /
calendar cases.
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor referring to the
principle laid down in the State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan
Sayyed Subhan1 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Ganesh
Pandurang Jadhao v. The State of Maharashtra2 and Anand
Ramdhani Chaurasia v. The State of Maharashtra3 by the Bombay
High Court would submit that police are having power to register
cases under various provisions of IPC, COTP Act, ED Act and DM
Act. There is no irregularity in registering crimes, seizing material
including the vehicles and laying charge sheet against respective
accused in the aforesaid crimes / calendar cases. According to him,
the accused were transporting, possessing, storing, selling and
purchasing the banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka /
khaini / zarda / pan masala respectively. According to him, the
accused have to face either investigation or trial and prove their
innocence, and instead of doing so, they have filed the present
criminal petitions under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. which cannot be
considered at this stage.
i) With the above said submissions, learned Public Prosecutor
sought to dismiss the above criminal petitions.
7. In view of the above rival submissions, it is apposite to
extract the relevant provisions of IPC, COTP Act, FSS Act, ED Act
and DM Act, which are as under:
. 2018 AIR (SC) 5348
. 2016 Cri. L.J. 2401
. 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1857
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER IPC
"188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public
servant.--Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by
a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order,
he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain
order with certain property in his possession or under his
management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such
disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or
injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person
lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one month or with fine which may
extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such
disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life,
health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend
to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.--It is not necessary that the offender should
intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as
likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order
which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is
likely to produce, harm.
Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant
lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a
religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A
knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot.
A has committed the offence defined in this section."
"269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease
dangerous to life.--Whoever unlawfully or negligently does
any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to
be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to
life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with
both."
"270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease
dangerous to life.--Whoever malignantly does any act which
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to
spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
"271. Disobedience to quarantine rule.--Whoever knowingly
disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Government for
putting any vessel into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the
intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or
with other vessels, or for regulating the intercourse between
places where an infectious disease prevails and other places,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with
both."
"272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.--
Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make
such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such
article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same
will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both."
"273. Sale of noxious food or drink.--Whoever sells, or offers
or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been
rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or
drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is nox-
ious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both."
"328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to
commit an offence.--Whoever administers to or causes to be
taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating
or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to
such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the
commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine."
"336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others.--
Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger
human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two
hundred and fifty rupees, or with both."
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces
the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
"34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons
is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by
him alone."
"511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences
punishable with imprisonment for life or other
imprisonment.--Whoever attempts to commit an offence
punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and
in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the
offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code
for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with
imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a
term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life
or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprison-
ment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided
for the offence, or with both."
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER COTP ACT
"5. Prohibition of advertisement of cigarettes and other
tobacco products.-(1) No person engaged in, or purported to
be engaged in the production, supply or distribution of cigarettes
or any other tobacco products shall advertise and no person
having control over a medium shall cause to be advertised
cigarettes or any other tobacco products through that medium
and no person shall take part in any advertisement which
directly or indirectly suggests or promotes the use or
consumption of cigarettes or any other tobacco products.
(2) No person, for any direct or indirect pecuniary benefit,
shall-
(a) display, cause to display, or permit or authorise to display
any advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or
(b) sell or cause to sell, or permit or authorise to sell a film or
video tape containing advertisement of cigarettes or any other
tobacco product; or
(c) distribute, cause to distribute, or permit or authorise to
distribute to the public any leaflet, hand-bill or document which
is or which contains an advertisement of cigarettes or any other
tobacco product; or
(d) erect, exhibit, fix or retain upon or over any land, building,
wall, hoarding, frame, post or structure or upon or in any vehicle
or shall display in any manner whatsoever in any place any
advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in relation
to-
(a) an advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product
in or on a package containing cigarettes or any other tobacco
product;
(b) advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco product
which is displayed at the entrance or inside a warehouse or a
shop where cigarettes and any other tobacco products are
offered for distribution or sale.
(3) No person, shall, under a contract or otherwise promote or
agree to promote the use or consumption of-
(a) cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or
(b) any trade mark or brand name of cigarettes or any other
tobacco product in exchange for a sponsorship, gift, prize or
scholarship given or agreed to be given by another person."
"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
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
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.
(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."
"7. Restrictions on trade and commerce in, and production,
supply and distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco
products.-
(1) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, supply or
distribute 6 cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless
every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products
produced, supplied or distributed by him bears thereon, or on its
label such specified warning including a pictorial warning as
may be prescribed.
(2) No person shall carry on trade or commerce in cigarettes or
any other tobacco products unless every package of cigarettes or
any other tobacco products sold, supplied or distributed by him
bears thereon, or on its label, the specified warning.
(3) No person shall import cigarettes or any other tobacco
products for distribution or supply for a valuable consideration
or for sale in India unless every package of cigarettes or any
other tobacco products so imported by him bears thereon, or on
its label, the specified warning.
(4) The specified warning shall appear on not less than one of
the largest panels of the package in which cigarettes or any other
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
tobacco products have been packed for distribution, sale or
supply for a valuable consideration.
(5) No person shall, directly or indirectly, produce, supply or
distribute cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless every
package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products produced,
supplied or distributed by him indicates thereon, or on its label,
the nicotine and tar contents on each cigarette or as the case may
be on other tobacco products along with the maximum
permissible limits thereof: Provided that the nicotine and tar
contents shall not exceed the maximum permissible quantity
thereof as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act."
RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER F.S.S. Act:
"58. Penalty for contraventions for which no specific penalty
is provided.-Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or
the rules or regulations made thereunder, for the contravention
of which no penalty has been separately provided in this
Chapter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to two
lakh rupees."
"59. Punishment for unsafe food.-Any person who, whether
by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures
for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of
food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be
punishable,-
(i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury,
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months
and also with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(ii) where such failure or contravention results in a non-grievous
injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year and also with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees;
(iii) where such failure or contravention results in a grievous
injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
years and also with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees;
(iv) where such failure or contravention results in death, with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also
with fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees."
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER E.D. ACT:
"3. Penalty. Any person disobeying any regulation or order
made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an
offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860 )."
RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER D.M. ACT:
"51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.--
(1) Whoever, without reasonable cause-- (1) Whoever, without
reasonable cause--"
(a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central Government
or the State Government, or a person authorised by the National
Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the
discharge of his functions under this Act; or
(b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf
of the Central Government or the State Government or the
National Executive Committee or the State Executive
Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on
conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such
obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of
lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
two years. notes on clauses Clauses 51 to 58 (Secs. 51 to 58)
seeks to lay down what will constitute an offence in terms of
obstruction of the functions under the Act, false claim for relief,
misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of false
warning, failure of an officer to perform the duty imposed on
him under the Act without due permission or lawful excuse, or
his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act.
The clauses also provide for penalties for these offences."
8. The lis involved in the present petitions is no more res
integra. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
in Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana4 had an occasion
to deal with the issues involved in the present criminal petitions.
After referring to various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and
also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts
. Crl.P. No.3731 of 2018 & batch, decided on 27.08.2018
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
in several judgments, the learned Single Judge had framed the issues,
which are as under:
"1) Whether the respondent/ Sub-Inspector of Police, is competent to
investigate into the offence punishable under Sections 54 and 59(1) of
FSS Act?
2) Whether the petitioners in all the petitions are found committing any
act with malicious intention, with knowledge and reason to believe that
such act likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life?
And whether the petitioners selling or offering or exposing for sale as
food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become
noxious or is in a state unfit for food or drink or reason to believe that
the same is noxious as food or drink? If so, are they liable to be
proceeded for the offence punishable under Sections 270 and 273
IPC.?"
9. After an elaborate discussion and on consideration of
various aspects, the learned Single Judge has held that the police
cannot take cognizance of the offence, to investigate into and file
charge sheet against the accused therein for the offence punishable
under Sections - 54 and 59 (1) of FSS Act, as they were not
empowered under the said Act to launch the prosecution, but only
Food Safety Officer appointed by the Government alone is competent
to launch prosecution for those two offences. With the said findings,
the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings where the
offences are under Sections - 54 and 59 of FSS Act initiated by the
police.
10. In the very same judgment, the learned Single Judge further
held that chewing tobacco and khaini are not the 'food' within the
definition of Section - 3(j) of the FSS Act and the manufacture, sale or
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is governed by the provisions of
COTP Act, but not by FSS Act and so also the provisions of IPC. The
respondents - police are incompetent to investigate the offence
punishable under Sections - 54 and 59 (1) of the FSS Act and
allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the statements do not
disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section - 273
of IPC since transportation of noxious food is not included under
Section - 273 of IPC. The act done by the accused therein 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 by itself is not
an offence under Section - 270 of IPC. Pan Masala is not a tobacco
product to fall within the purview of COTP Act. Therefore, the
provisions of the COTP Act have no application, thereby registration
of crime on the ground of violation of Sections - 7 (1) (2) (3) (5) and
Section - 26 of COTP Act is an illegality. The learned Single Judge
further held that registration of cases for the offence under Section -
20 (2) read with 7 (2) of COTP Act is illegal. With the said findings,
the learned Single Judge has quashed the crimes and calendar cases in
the said judgment.
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
11. In Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasadhi Tripati Rao
v. The State of Andhra Pradesh5, a learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravti had also an occasion to deal
with the said issue. After referring to the contentions of the respective
parties therein, various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and
relying on the principle laid down in Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia3,
Joseph Kurian v. State of Kerala6, Sayyed Hassan Sayyed
Subhan1, M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., v. State of U.P.7,
Sanjay Anjay Stores v. Union of India8, Boop Singh Tyagi v.
State9, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal10 and Chidurala
Shyamsubder4, the learned Single Judge has quashed the FIRs /
Calendar Cases. The learned Single Judge referring to the law laid
down in Chidurala Shyamsubder4 held that despite the said
authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues. The said
judgment attained finality. Even then, the police are registering cases
against accused on the very same allegations for the very same
offences.
i) Referring to the provisions of Sections - 153, 188, 269,270,
271, 272, 273, 284, 328, 353 of IPC, the learned Judge in Sri
Jaganath Enterprises5 held that the offences registered under the
said Sections are not maintainable. It further held that the provisions
of the COTP Act can only be pressed into service in the limited
. 2020 (1) ALT (Crl.) 215 (APHC)
. 1995 (1) SCJ 277
. 2011 (2) Crimes 250
. 2017 SCC Online Cal 16323
. 2002 Crl.L.J. 2872
. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
circumstances only where there is violation of Sections -
4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 of the COTP Act. By referring to the principle laid
down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal10 and M/s. Pepsico India
Holdings (Pvt) Ltd.7, the learned Single Judge has quashed the
proceedings in various crimes / calendar cases.
12. Another learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Amaravati in V. Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra
Pradesh11 had also an occasion to deal with the said issue and agreed
with the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubder4.
13. In Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan1, the Apex Court while
dealing with legality of the order passed by the Bombay High Court in
a batch of criminal writ petitions and criminal applications, which
were filed challenging the registration of FIRs for the offences under
Sections - 188, 272, 273 and 328 of IPC and Sections - 26 and 30 of
the FSS Act where there is an allegation of transportation and sale of
Gutka / Pan Masala etc., held that the judgment of Bombay High
Court is contrary to the provisions of the Act and law laid down by it.
With the said finding, the Apex Court remitted the matter to the
Bombay High Court for fresh consideration on the issue that whether
the aforesaid offences are made out in the FIRs, which are subject
matter of the cases pending before the Bombay High Court.
. 2020 Supreme (AP) 348
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
14. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law in the
aforesaid judgments, as discussed above, coming to the facts of the
cases on hand, the allegations against the accused in respective cases
are transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned
products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini / zarda / pan masala
etc., respectively. In Chidurala Shyamsubder4, the learned Single
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 has further observed in the
said judgment which is 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."
15. Section - 272 of IPC makes punishable an offence by a
person, who adulterates any article of food or drink. Therefore, the
said section would only come into play if food or drink is adulterated.
There is no definition of 'adulteration' in IPC. The definition of
'adulterant' is found in the provisions of the FSS Act. Section - 3 (1)
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
(a) of the FSS Act deals with 'adulterant' which means a material
which could make the 'food' unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded.
According to Section - 272 of IPC, if a material is used to make the
food unsafe/sub-standard or mis-branded, then only the offence would
be attracted. Whereas, as discussed supra, the allegation in the
present batch of cases is with regard to transportation, possession,
storage, sale and purchase of banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku
/ gutka / khaini / zarda / pan masala etc., respectively. Therefore,
according to this Court, the said allegation does not fall within the
ambit of Section - 272 of IPC. Therefore, I agree with the principle
laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder4, Sri Jaganath Enterprises5
and V. Nageswara Rao11.
16. In Joseph Kurian6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
for Section - 272 IPC to be attracted, the following should be present.
(1) That the article involved was food and drink meant to be
consumed by live persons; (2) that the accused adulterated it and the
adulteration rendered it noxious as a 'food or drink'; (3) that the
accused knew at the time of adulteration that he would sell the article
as food or drink and knew that such article cannot be sold as food or
drink. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the offence is
completed on the introduction of the adulterant. 'Adulterant' would
mean that a material which is mixed to make the 'food' unsafe or
drink unsafe. In the present case on hand, tobacco is not a food or
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
drink and what is stated to be mixed in it is not clearly established by
any cogent material as an 'adulterant' for the offence under Section -
272 IPC to be pressed into service.
17. As far as Section - 328 of IPC is concerned, in the same
judgment it was held as follows:
"10. In order to prove offence under Section 328 the prosecution is
required to prove that the substance in question was a poison, or any
stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug etc, that the accused
administered the substance to the complainant or caused the
complainant to take such substance, that he did so with intent to cause
hurt or knowing it to be likely 19 that he would thereby cause hurt, or
with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence.
It is, therefore, essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused
was directly responsible for administering poison etc. or causing it to
be taken by any person, through another......."
Tobacco does not fit into this definition.
18. Section - 273 of IPC deals with sale of a noxious food or
drink, and as per which, whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale,
as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become
noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having
reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be
punished with imprisonment specified therein. Therefore, if a person
offers for sale a "food or drink" any article which has become noxious
or is in a state of unfit for "food or drink". Thus, the said section
would apply, when an article which has become noxious or which has
been rendered noxious. It also applies to food or drink only. As held
in Sri Jaganath Enterprises5, the word 'noxious' is not defined in
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
IPC or in FSS Act. As per the dictionary meaning, the word 'noxious'
is harmful, deleterious, injurious, poisonous etc. As stated above, the
allegation in the entire batch of present criminal petitions is with
regard to transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of
banned products viz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini / zarda / pan
masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the
contents of the complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section
- 273 of IPC.
19. As far as section - 188 IPC is concerned , as per the settled
law on the subject, before an accused is charged, there must be; an
order duly promulgated by the public servant; the public servant must
have the lawful authority to promulgate the order; the person flouting
the same should have knowledge about the order directing him to
abstain from the act; he must disobey the said order with the
knowledge; and such disobedience of the duly promulgated order
should cause a danger to the human life etc. In Boop Singh Tyagi9 a
Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that right to promulgate
the ordinance/order is also an issue which is being raised, because
under the FSS Act, the Commissioner of Food Safety alone has the
authority to pass the orders only if the article of 'food' can causes
danger or is injurious to health.
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
20. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public
Prosecutor12 while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188
and 283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge of the combined High Court
of Andhra Pradesh held as under:
"5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner
conducted public meetings at three road junctions
contrary to the permission accorded for conducting
of a public meeting only at one specified place is
true, such a direction under Section 30 of the
Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by
the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent
of Police of the District but not by any of their
subordinates. If such a permission is granted
under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is
violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal
Procedure mandates that the complaint in this
regard has to be made by the public servant
concerned or some other person to whom such a
public servant is administratively subordinate to
enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence
under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by
the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have
been the authority to grant permission for the
public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge
sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of
Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been
committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal
Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in
consequence to the alleged offence under Section
188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an
. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
independent of the same. Even otherwise, the
conduct of public meeting at three road junctions
or obstruction to the traffic could not have been
considered as causing any danger or injury to any
person. In so far as the obstruction in any public
way is concerned, which can also be covered by
Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge
sheet cites only one witness to speak about the
traffic jam caused by the road show. But, when
the conduct of the public meeting at least at one
place has been permitted and if the gathering for
that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience
by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot
be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea
to construe the existence of an offence punishable
under Indian Penal Code. Under the
circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be
said to have any reasonable basis and in any view,
the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of
Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure,
has to fail.
7) As the complaint has failed due to its
unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety
have to fail, though the 1st accused alone
approached this Court by way of this Criminal
Petition."
21. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari
District13, wherein by relying on various judgments including N.T.
Rama Rao12 and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in
Bhajan Lal10 more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that
. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding
is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned
Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the
party, it was held that the proceedings in the said C.C. were quashed
by exercising power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It was also further
held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical
defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C.
and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is
against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.
22. Vide Notification No.501/FSS-1/2020, dated 06.01.2020,
the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana Directorate of Institute
of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs and Food (Health)
Administration, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, restricted the manufacture,
storage, distribution, transportation and sale of gutka / pan masala,
which contains tobacco and nicotine, as ingredients and chewing
tobacco products, like chap tobacco, pure tobacco, khaini, kharra,
scented tobacco / flavoured tobacco or by whatever name locally it is
called packed in sachets / pouches / package in the entire Stage of
Telangana under FSS Act, 2006. It is for one year. Vide Notification
No.505/FSS-1/2021, dated 06.01.2021, the same was extended for one
more year. As per the information furnished and instructions
received, several writ petitions were filed challenging the said
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
Notifications before this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
A Division Bench of this Court declined to entertain some writ
petitions on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court seized of the
said issue. It is also relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
remanded back the matter to this Court. Therefore, such a notification
can only be issued for emergency situations and for prohibiting the
distribution and sale of any article of a food cannot be lost sight of.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the above judgments
including the judgments in Chidurala Shyamsubder4, Sri Jaganath
Enterprises5 and V. Nageswara Rao11. According to this Court,
Section - 188 of IPC will not attract to the allegations leveled against
the petitioners herein in this batch of criminal petitions.
23. As far as Section - 328 of IPC is concerned, it deals with
causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an
offence. As per the said provision, whoever administers to or causes
to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating
or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such
person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an
offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore,
there should be administering poison, intoxicating etc., with intent to
cause hurt to such person or with intent to commit or to facilitate the
commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
thereby cause hurt. As stated above, the allegations in the entire batch
of criminal petitions are lacking. Therefore, according to this Court,
the contents of the complaints / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of
Section - 328 of IPC.
24. As far as Section - 336 of IPC is concerned, it deals with an
act endangering life or personal safety of others, and as per which,
whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human
life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with impris-
onment of either description for a term which may extend to three
months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty
rupees, or with both. In the complaints / charge sheets, there is no
such allegation of rash and negligent act which endangers human life
or personal safety of others. Therefore, according to this Court, the
contents of the complaints / charge sheets lacks the ingredients of
Section - 336 of IPC.
25. As far as Section - 420 of IPC is concerned, it deals with
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. There is no
such inducement either at the inception or at a later stage. Thus, the
contents of complaints / charge sheet lack the ingredients of Section -
420 of IPC.
26. As far as Section - 269 of IPC is concerned, it deals with
negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life,
and as per which, whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to
spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to six months, or with fine, or with both. But, a perusal of the
contents of complaints / charge sheets in the present batch of cases,
such ingredients are lacking and, therefore, Section - 269 of IPC does
not arise in the present batch of cases.
27. In view of the above said discussion, according to this
Court, transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of
tobacco products are not totally banned in the State of Telangana and
also in the Country. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sections - 269,
270, 271, 272 and 273, 328, 336 and 420 of IPC are attracted to the
cases in this batch.
28. As far as the offences under FSS Act is concerned, as
already discussed above, in Chidurala Shyamsubder4, the learned
Single Judge following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal10 held that the police are incompetent
to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections - 54 and
59 (1) of the FSS Act, investigating into the offences along with other
offences under the provisions of the IPC. It was further held that
filing charge sheet is a grave illegality, as the Food Safety Officer
alone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet following the
Rules laid down under Sections - 41 and 42 of FSS Act. In the
present case, the police have registered the crime for the offences
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
under Sections - 188, 270 and 273 of IPC. Therefore, in the present
batch of cases, entertaining the complaints / filing the charge sheets by
the police is contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala
Shyamsubder4.
29. With regard to the offences under COTP Act, it is relevant
to mention the objects and the reasons of the said Act itself clearly
state that the act is meant to prohibit the advertisement of, and to
provide for the regulation of trade and commerce in, and production,
supply and distribution of, cigarettes and other tobacco products and
for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. A reading of the
said objects of the said Act would reveal that a total ban of tobacco
products was not envisaged by the said Act. The Parliament merely
felt it expedient to control the advertisement and sale of tobacco
products. As noted earlier in the order, Section - 3 (p) of the COTP
Act and the schedule therein define tobacco products. Pan masala,
gutkha and chewing tobacco are included in the definition of tobacco
products. Section - 5 of the COTP Act deals with prohibition of
advertisement of cigarette and other tobacco products only. No
person, who is engaged in the production, supply or distribution of
cigarettes or other products shall advertise the same. Similarly, no
person having the control over a medium can advertise cigarettes or
tobacco products, and no person shall be a part of any advertisement.
30. Section - 7 of the COTP Act deals with the imposition of
restriction on the sale, trade, commerce of tobacco products unless
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
every package of cigarette or tobacco product contains a specified
warning (pictorial or otherwise). Section - 4 of the COTP Act, bans
smoking in public places. In addition, Section - 6 of the COTP Act,
prohibits the sale of cigarettes or other tobacco products to a person
who is under the age of 18 years are in an area within 100 yards of
any educational institution.
31. A reading of this Act, particularly Sections - 4, 5, 6 and 7
clearly shows that there is no general ban or general prohibition on the
manufacture/sale of tobacco products. 22 What is barred is merely the
sale of these products to a person, who is below the age of 18 years
and in an area within 100 yards of an educational institution. The
other aspects covered by Sections - 5 and 7 of the COTP Act, deal
with the advertisement and the warning, which is to be contained on a
package, in which the tobacco product is packed. This is a regulatory
mechanism only. Therefore, according to this Court, the above said
allegations of transportation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of
banned tobacco products will not attract the offence under Section -7
of the COTP Act.
32. As far as Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act is concerned, as
stated above, the allegations against the petitioner in respective
complaints / charge sheets are that they were transporting, possessing,
storing, selling and purchasing the banned 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
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
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."
33. Thus, Section - 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for
failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. But, in
the complaints / charge sheets, there is no allegation against the
petitioners that they were 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
complaints / charge sheets 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
crimes for the said offence against the petitioners is not only contrary
to Section - 20 (2) of COTP Act, but also contrary to the principle laid
down in Chidurala Shyamsubder4. In view of the same, the offence
under Section - 20 (2) of COTP Act is also liable to be quashed
against the petitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree with the
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
principle laid down by the learned Single Judges of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubder4, Sri Jaganath
Enterprises5 and V. Nageswara Rao11.
34. For the foregoing discussion and the authoritative principle
of law, Criminal Petition Nos. 3768, 3879, 4046, 4077, 4098, 4099,
4100, 4102, 4141, 4151, 4157, 4182, 4187, 4247, 4249, 4251, 4258,
4262, 4277, 4405, 4415, 4542, 4615, 4640, 4681, 4727, 4775, 4825
and 5826 of 2021 are allowed quashing the proceedings against the
petitioners therein in the respective crimes mentioned therein. Since
the proceedings in the aforesaid Criminal Petitions are quashed
against the respective petitioners, the respective Station House
Officers / Investigating Officers are hereby directed to return the
seized property / vehicles on proper identification and verification of
ownership under due acknowledgment.
35. Further, Criminal Petition Nos. 152, 153, 155 & 162 of
2020, 3498, 3500, 3509, 3514, 4070, 4110, 4119, 4140, 4178, 4194,
4216, 4230, 4361, 4612, 4622 and 4632 of 2021 are also allowed
quashing the proceedings against the petitioners therein in the
respective Calendar Cases mentioned therein. Since the proceedings
are quashed, the respective petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate
applications before the concerned Magistrate for return of the seized
property / vehicle and the Magistrate shall consider the same in
accordance with law.
KL,J
Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all the
Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
05TH JULY, 2021
Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
(B/O.) Mgr
