Telangana High Court
Chalamalla Padma Reddy And ... vs The State Of Telangana on 31 March, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2727 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.107 of 2021 on
the file of the Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet
against the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3 and for a
consequential direction as to the said Court to return the
seized property. The offences alleged against the petitioners
are under Sections 420 and 273 of IPC and Section 24(i) 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 petitioners, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
Perused the entire material available on record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that the Sub-Inspector of Police is not having authority to
lodge the present complaint, and the Suryapet II Town Police
Station, is not having power to register a case in Crime
No.517 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 420 and 273
of IPC and Section 24 (i) of the COTP Act. He would further
submit that the allegation against the petitioners is that they
are selling the tobacco products to the customers illegally in
order to gain wrongful profits. Thus, the accused has
committed the aforesaid offences. The learned counsel by
referring to the provisions of COTP Act, including 24 (i), would
submit that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not
attract the ingredients of the aforesaid provisions and,
therefore, the aforesaid offences alleged against the
petitioners are liable to be quashed. In support of the same,
he has placed reliance on the judgment in Chidurala
Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana1 rendered by the High
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana
and Andhra Pradesh. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor
has tried to distinguish the principle laid down in the said
judgment to the facts of the present case.
4. Perused the judgment in Chidurala Shyamsubder
(supra), wherein 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 54 and 59 (1) of the Food Safety
and Standards Act, 2006 (for short 'FSS Act'), investigating
into the offences along with other offences under the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was further
. Crl.P. No.3731 of 2018 & batch, decided on 27.08.2018
. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
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 under Sections 420 and
273 of IPC and Section 24 (i) of COTP Act. Therefore, the said
proceedings in C.C. No.107 of 2021 against the petitioners
herein are contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala
Shyamsubder (Supra) and, therefore, the same are liable to
be quashed.
5. As far as Section - 24 (i) of the COTP Act is concerned,
as stated above, the allegations against the petitioners is 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 Sections - 24 (i) and 6 of the
COTP Act for better appreciation of the case and to decide the
issue in question, and the same is as under:
"24. Punishment for sale of cigarettes or any
other tobacco products in certain places or to
persons below the age of eighteen years.-(1)
Any person who contravenes the provisions of
section 6 shall be guilty of an offence under this
Act and shall be punishable with fine which
may extend to two hundred rupees. (2) All
offences under this section shall be
compoundable and shall be tried summarily in
accordance with the procedure provided for
summary trials in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
6. Prohibition on sale of cigarette or other
tobacco products to a person below the age of
eighteen years and in particular area.-No
person shall sell, offer for sale, or permit sale of,
cigarette or any other tobacco product- (a) to any
person who is under eighteen years of age, and
(b) in an area within a radius of one hundred
yards of any educational institution."
6. Thus, Section 24 of COTP Act deals with sale of
cigarettes or any other tobacco products in certain places or
to persons below the age of eighteen years and any person
who contravenes the provisions of Section 6 i.e., prohibition
on sale of cigarette or other tobacco products to a person
below the age of eighteen years. As stated above, the
allegation against the petitioners herein is that they purchase
the tobacco products and sell them to customers at higher
prices to gain wrongful profits. There is no allegation in the
charge sheet against the petitioners that they are selling the
same to the customers below the age of 18 years or at a
particular area. In view of the same, the contents of the
charge sheet lack the ingredients of Section 24 (i) of the COTP
Act. Therefore, registering the crime for the said offence
against the petitioners is also contrary to
Section 24 (i) of COTP Act. Thus, the offence under Section
24 (i) of COTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the
petitioners.
7. In view of the above discussion, the present Criminal
Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.107 of
2021 on the file of the Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Suryapet, are hereby quashed against the petitioners -
accused Nos.2 and 3.
8. Since the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed
against the petitioners in C.C.No.107 of 2021, the petitioners
are at liberty to file appropriate application for return of
seized property and the learned Magistrate shall consider the
same and return the seized property on proper identification
and verification of ownership of seized property under due
acknowledgment. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in
the criminal petition, shall stand closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
31st March, 2021
PN
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2727 OF 2021
31st March, 2021
PN
