Telangana High Court
Pindi Pandi Suresh vs The State Of Telangana on 4 July, 2022
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.370, 372, 378, 380, 775, 3451, 9517, 9557,
9597 & 9598 OF 2021 AND 109, 1290, 1985, 3922 & 5214 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
All these Criminal Petitions are filed by the respective
petitioners under Section - 482 of the Code of the Criminal
Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in the respective
Crimes/Calendar Cases/Sessions Cases registered for the offences
under Sections - 188, 270, 272, 273, 420, 353 and 328 read with
511 of IPC; Sections - 20 (2) read with 7 (2) and 24 (1) 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') and Sections - 2, 3 and 4 of the Food Safety and Standards
Act, 2006 (for short 'FSS Act').
2. The nature of allegations in all these offences relate to
transportation, sale, possession, manufacture, storage, etc. of
tobacco products including khaini, zarda, pan masala and other
such allegedly harmful and banned products.
KL,J
Crl.P. No.370 of 2021 & batch
2
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent -
State, and perused the record.
4. Perusal of the record would reveal that the lis involved in
this batch of cases had already been dealt with by this Court
extensively in Mohd. Jameel Ahmed v. State of Telangana1.
This Court in the said cases by relying on various decisions of the
Supreme Court explained and interpreted the relevant provisions
with which the petitioners herein were charged. Following the said
judgment, this Court had also disposed of similar matters vide
Common Order dated 10.06.2022 in Crl.P. No.5619 of 2020 and
batch. Thus, nothing remains further to be discussed in this batch
of cases. Following the said judgments, the proceedings in the
subject crimes/C.Cs/S.Cs for the offences under Sections - 188,
270, 272, 273, 420 and 328 read with 511 of IPC and Section -20
(2) read with 7 (2) and 24 (1) of the COTP Act are liable to be
quashed.
2022 Crl.L.J. 642
KL,J
Crl.P. No.370 of 2021 & batch
5. As far as Sections - 2, 3 and 4 of the FSS Act are
concerned, perusal of the complaints/charge sheets do not disclose
the ingredients of the said offences and, therefore, the proceedings
for the said offences are liable to be quashed.
6. As far as the offence under Section - 353 of IPC is
concerned, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that
there is specific allegation against the petitioners with regard to the
offence under Section - 353 of IPC. Perusal of the charge
sheets/complaints in some of the cases would reveal that the
accused persons used criminal force and obstructed the police in
checking vehicles and deterred them from discharging their
legitimate duties. In some of the cases, it is mentioned that on
seeing the police, accused person (s) pushed them to escape and
obstructed their lawful duties. Thus, the police have registered the
subject crimes for the said offence.
7. Section - 353 of IPC deals with 'assault or criminal force
to deter public servant from discharge of his duty'. In view of the
same, it is apposite to extract the said provision which is as under:
KL,J
Crl.P. No.370 of 2021 & batch
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public
servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever
assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a
public servant in the execution of his duty as such
public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that
person from discharging his duty as such public servant,
or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be
done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty
as such public servant, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
8. In this regard, relying on the decision rendered by the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Jaganath
Enterprises, Eluru v. State of A.P., through SHO, Pamur P.S.,
Prakasam District2, learned counsel for the petitioner herein
would submit that the complaints/charge sheets lacks the
ingredients of offence under Section -353 of IPC and, therefore, the
proceedings for the said offence are also liable to be quashed.
9. Further, in Durgacharan v. State of Orissa3, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that under Section - 353 of IPC, the ingredients of
assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his
. 2020 (1) ALT (Crl) 215
. AIR 1966 SC 1775
KL,J
Crl.P. No.370 of 2021 & batch
duty as such is necessary. It was also held that mere use of force,
however, is not enough to bring an Act within the terms of Section
353 of IPC. It has further to be shown that force was used
intentionally to any person without that person's consent in order to
commit an offence or with the intention or with the knowledge that
the use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person
against whom the force is used. In the case on hand, perusal of the
record would reveal that there were no injuries caused out of the
force alleged to have used by the petitioner injuries were caused.
10. In Jaganath Enterprises2, the learned Single Judge of
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati observed as under:
"Section 353 IPC is also pressed into service by the
police in these cases. In the case on hand, the only issue
that is raised is that the accused 'pushed' away the
police officer while trying to escape. This by itself, in
the opinion of this Court, would not amount to use of
assault or criminal force against a public servant from
discharging of his duties."
11. Thus, prima facie, the complaints/charge sheets lack the
ingredients of the offence under Section - 353 of IPC and,
KL,J
Crl.P. No.370 of 2021 & batch
therefore, the proceedings for the said offence are also liable to be
quashed.
12. Following the Common Order in Mohd. Jameel
Ahmed (Supra) and the Common Order dated 10.06.2022 in
Crl.P. No.5619 of 2020 and batch, all these Criminal Petitions are
allowed quashing the proceedings in the respective
Crimes/Calendar Cases/Sessions Cases against the respective
petitioner (s) - accused.
13. As 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. In cases
where charge sheets are already filed 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.370 of 2021 & batch
14. However, it is made clear that if the seized stock of
tobacco products or other products are expired, the same shall be
destroyed by taking permission from the concerned Magistrate.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
criminal petitions shall stand closed.
____________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
4th July, 2022
Note:
Annex a copy of the order dated 05.07.2021
in Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch and Common
Order dated 10.06.2022 in Crl.P. No.5619 of 2020 & batch.
(B/O.) Mgr
