Pavan Kumar And 2 Others v. The State Of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

N/ONDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 9778 0F 2022 ALONG WITH I.A.NO .2 0F 2022 Between:

Pavan Kumar, S/o Shankarai?lr, 4S"O about 36 years, Occ: Labourer. F/o Kistapur Village, Jannaram fr/jnaa], H,tanin"ri"'i"Oirtri.t Ivluchineni Naqesh, S/o Ankanna,. Aged about 24 years, Occ: Driver, R/o Beersaipet, Utnoor Mandat, aOifiOadbistrrct"-' -- Banavath Devendhar. S/o Kimya Naik, Aggd about 26 years, Occ. Driver, R/o Rendlaguda Village, Jannarbm l,,tanOall Ma nc-rreiiri bi.tri"t ...PET|TIONERS/ACCUSED Nos. 1 TO 3 AND l The state of reranoana, through S.H.o. Mamda porice station, Nirmar District, rep. by pu Sric erose-cuior, H,gI'ioirt]fi vo"rrura ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section - 492 0f cr.p.c., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of cri;in;r p"etition, tn" Higr.,- c"r,i'r"y be pleased to quash the proceeding against the petitroners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in crime'No 7 of 2021 .on the fire of p".S.t\,,ramda poiice station, Nirmar-Disfti and _consequentry direct the porice to return the sized materiar , cri.".r.r".i "i 2021 .

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under section 482 of cr.p .c., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pteased lo_dlec! the porice to return the seizeJmateriar in c;im;:Ni ".i .,t'ioit on the fire of p.S.,Mamda porice station, Nirmal District to the petitioners. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHr,Advocate for the petitioner and the pubric prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER

Crl.lietil i,)' No.97'18 of 2022.

TI{E HI)NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SI.JRTiNDER CR:MINAL PETITIO N No.9778 Of 2:,.)-2 ALONG WITH I.A.NO,2OF 20'22 coMMoN o ILEB:

This Cr minal Petition under Section 482 ot '.he Code of Criminal Proc:dure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings against them ir F.LR.No.7 of 202i, pendinr on the file of Station House Officer, l'lanrda Police Station, Nirma I District 2.

The pel itioners herein are the accused Nos.1 ,rt 3 in the said cn me.

The cffences alleged against them are und,-.r Ser:tions 270 and 273 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "J PC'). 3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner:; anrl learned Additional Pul rlic Prosecutor for the respondent. Pertrsed the record. 4.

Perusal of the record would reveal that the lis involved in this case had alr:ady been dealt with by this Court,lxtenr;ively vide common ordr r dated 05.07.2021 in Crl.P. No.152 of ,t-020 and batch which was 'epofted in Mohd. Jameel Ahmerl v. State of

Crl. Petitaon No.9l7E ol Z0ZZ Telanganar and also vide common order dated 10.06.2022 in Crl.P.No.5619 of 2020 and batch.

5. Therefore, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in F.i.R.No.7 of 2021, pending on the file of Station House Officer, Mamda police Stauon, Nirmal District, in terms oF the common order, dated 05.07.2021 passed by this Court in Mohd. Jameel Ahmed (Supra) and also common order dated LO.O6.2O2Z in Crl.P.No.5619 of 2020 and batch.

6.

As the proceedings in the aforesaid Crimlnal petition are quashed against the . petitioners, the Station House Officer/Investigating Officer is hereby directed to return the seized property/vehicle on proper identification and verification of ownership under due acknowledgment. In case charge sheet is already filed the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate for return of the seized property/vehicle and the Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that if the seized stock of tobacco products or other products are expired, the same | 2o22criu 6q2

Crr,l\i tion No-9778 of 2022 l shall be d tstroyed by taking permission from :he concerned Magistrate.

7.

The ctpy of the common orders passed t)y this Court in Criminal Peti jon No.152 of 2020 and batch on OS.l7.z}irl and also in Criminal Prtition No.5619 of 2020 and batch on 10.06.2022, shall form part of this order.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal I etition stand closed.

Sor- R. KARTHTKEYAN ASS;ISTANT REGISTRAR (il //TRUE COPY// SEC:TION OFFICER To,

1. The Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate al Niorntal.

2. The Station I ouse Officer,Mamda police Station,Nirmat Distri({.

3. Two CCs to t,re public prosecutor, High Court for the St. te of .Ielangana at Hyderabad [C UT]

4. One CC to S it. GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHT Advocat,: [OpUC]

5. Two CD Copi, :s pcsd q NJB

HIGH COURT KS,J DATED:19112120 '.2

ORDER

CRLP.No.9778 ot 2022 ALONG WiTH l.A No.2 of 2022 -a--= =:'

!.E {: 14 )t- / _,, (1 \\ -\^/ f [ 4 t i: t] ?i]23 6l ,l ALLOWING THE (;RIMINAL PETITION -\ * &)c"Pi4 " b0--- (,va \

KL.I Crl.P. No. t 52 o1 2020 & bttch IION'Rt,E SRI JUS'TICB K. LAI(SIIMAN CRIN{IN.\t, PI,ITITION Nos.l52, 153. 155, 162 & 5826 OF 2020 AND 3.198. 3500. 3s09. -151.1. .3768, 3t179, 1046, 407 0, 4077. 409ta, /1099. 4 100, .1102. .ll 10. 4l 19. 4 l.l0. 4r4 l. 4 rs1. 1157, 4178, 4182, 4787. 4t94. 4216. .1230 1217 4249 .1251 .1258 1762 1277 .1361 -l{05 4415 4512 1612 4615. 4622. 4632,.16{0..1681. 4727. 4775 & 41125 OF 2021, COMN{ON ORDER:

Alt the above Criminal Petitions are filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners accused in respective Crirnes / Calendar Cases. The details of relevant Crimes / Calendar Cascs, olfences alleged, nature of offences etc., are mentioned in the fbllowing tabular fbrm:

Offences allcgedly committed Nature ol oflence Accused Nunlber sl.

No Crime No Crl.P.

No.

2'72, 213 IPC & 20 (2) r/u, 7(2) ol'

COTPA 217/20 o[ I'S Manoharabad l ransportation of Ambcr tobacco 0l 3763/l I sole accused I I 0l 3819 t21 .]t'l l Kadam of PS sole accused 270 &273 IPC Sale ofbanned tobacco products 0l 1046t21 78/21 of PS (T) Adilabad Al &2 -doSale oIgutka/tobacco illcgally in godown 40'/1t11 2l/21 of PS Easgoan sole accused -do Possession ofgutka /tobacco in pan shop 4098i2t Al to 3 2',70, 2'73 IPC & 20 (2) ofCOTPA Transportation of prohibitcd gutka lssi3l of PS (T) I Nirrnct I 4099 t21 No.36/21 of PS Koutala sole accused 270 & 2't3 tPC Possession oftobacco products in the house 4 t00/21 No.l8,'21 of l'S Easgoan sole accused 2'70 &2'7] ll>C I'ossession ofbanned gutka & othcr tobacco items in pan shop 336, 273 & 188 IPC & 59 (i) of ITSSA Transportation and sale ofprohibited tobacco products 0s 4\02/21 455/21 of PS Kukatpally solc accuscd

.1 KL"J ( t.i.P \".1j: t)t )lD(t <tba!(h t70 &:73 IPC & 20(2) nw 7(2) c'1'

COTPA 272 & :73 rPC & 20 (2) of C()TP \ 4t4t/ I 45121 of PS ( hiragpalll, I ransportation of lobacco products .\ l ttr .l l 198i21 of PS Storage of tobacccr ts for sale C houtuppal solc accused l() 415 l1: r tl 272, 2i) t{ 3 rPc &:0 (l) &

(3) ol'C'l'fPA ['urchasc and sale of prohibited tobacco roducts ll 11511-.1 114121 of PS Chityal (NLG) AIro4 7.1/2 I ol-l'S Ra l(-rn Trrnsporlation of banrred I tobacco/gutka ll AI & 2 270&t7 r IPC 4182/: I 202121 of PS (T) lvlancherial I'ossession of banned obacco roducls sole accused lr I ls7,: I -(l(rt I 6 i/2 I ol' PS II T,rwn Aclilabad l.l 1241t21 -<irrI crssession ol banncd sole accused .\l & l I gutlir l)roduct\ I l0l/21 of PS I Torvt Adilabad 9(/lI of l'S I Torvn Adilabad 9l/ll ol' PS I 'ft,wn Adilahad :ole accuscd Sale ofgutka and t()llacco ts l5 -clo1249/2 n houl lo transpori noxious gutka and lr)bacco ucts Sai,: ofbanned gutka and tobacco roduots sole accused I 1251,,2 -C rI 4258i2 l'7 l07i2l of PS I Town Adilabad I r:rnsportation ofgutka I ard tohacco products I lll Al & 2 -d,- 4262i1 162/21 of PS AbdullapLrrmet

188. .272 273 t:

328 IPC Sale of banned tobacco (tanrl)aku) products in Lrrr,., 121'7 i2 Al to 3 t88, 272 & 27, IPC 201/21 of PS I rvn Nalgonda ll ],'21 ol PS II I r"nsportation of gut ia/tobacco Pi,ssession ol_banncd _cslg rtobacco UC IS sr)lc accused sole accuscd I l40,sr2 t 2() -To ]I -{4t5II -d, llJs, 26,). 270 173 r,'w 3.1 IPC 8 I of ED.\ & .si

11) Nalgrrnda I 37,11 ol' PS III (T) Ko(hagudcnr Posscssion of tobacco proJrrcts in kirana shop b ol DM ,\ Al & l 1542/2t 2?

125/21 of PS Nirural -I own I 270 & 271 IPC l'osr;ession of prohibited lobalco ducts for sale -do- r'rv 3.! IPC I ransportation ofbaured tohacco/ kcts Al &:

2] 4615121 i\l 89/10 of- PS Mamada l 1640/21 328 tw 5ll,2i2 & 27 3 rPC 186/21 of PS Peddavoora A2 Po;session ofbanned llutka & tobacco pro(lLr:ts rn kitana l ransportation of cigarl e or other tobacco pro,lucts without valid licensc 468li2t 1',lo,2't2 & 2'77 IPC & 20 (2) of COTPA I | 164i21 of PS I I naiu,'r, Al 1127 t21 134'21 of PS I (T) Nalsonda Al to .l I 328, 212. 273 & I88 IPC 2i Salt ofgrrtka & khaini 1775t)1 328.:70 & .t7l r/w 5ll IPL & 20 l.l-s2t of PS1 Al&l KhaDnncr)r (R) , ran:prrrtation of banncd I 4325/t I l ol col r,A tllka

l KI,.J c .P. No.t52 o[2O2() & h. J I CAT,ENDAR CASES t52t20 3515/19 of I-AJMFC, Warangal A2

210. 273 & r88, 420 rPC & 53 ol FSSA Transportation olbanned zarda products I I I Iyd.

,,\] 212 & 273 tl'C & 59 of FSSA, 2006 Sale ofzarda illegally t-53/20 2'724119 of XVII ACi\,{M, I 155110 15l8/ l9 of t-AJN,tFC, Warangal A3 420, 2',10 & 273 rPC & 58 of FssA Transportation of banned zarda 31.

.\1 272, 2',73, 336 & 420 IPC & 20 (2) of COl'PA l2 162120 47)'ll18 oi XI AMM, Sec.bad Sale ofprohibited gutka and chewing tobacco products Special Magistrate of ll Class, Jagtial Al&l 188, 270 & 273 'C Transportation of Amber gutka pockels 3l 5816,,10 I I I l-l 1498/21 216t20 of JFCM.

Devarkonda Al & 2 420 & 2',73 IPC Sale ofbanned tobacco and gutka products 3500/l I 963/19 o1'

JFCIU, Miryalguda Al toi 420 & 273 rPC & 20 (ii) of corPA.2oo3 Transportation of tobacco and gutka products 188, 270 & 273 tPC, 20 (2)of COTPA, 3ofEDA& sl (b) or DMA {51,10 ot'

x.\\' NtN1C.

lilr.rhirnl\,rtJn r\l & l Storage ofbanned gutka and othcr tobacco products illegally lirr sale 3509/2 t I I 3st4l2t 6f)ll9 ol'

xxv Mt\4c, lbmhirnpatnarn Al to 8 188, 270, 271 & 420 IPC & 20 (2) of CO'IPA Supply ofgutka and other tobacco products 272 k 2'.73 rPC & 20 (2) r/w 1 (2) of COTPA 1070i)t 54'7121 of PJMFC, Gaj wel Al & 2 'fransportation of Ambcr tobacco 509120 of Spl.PCR Mobile Court-cumJMFC, Adilabad Al to5 270 & 273 rPC & 20 (2) w1(2)of COTPA 'Iransponation ofpan masala and banned gutka i9 4l l01l I 5 l2120 nf Spl.PCR Mobile Al to4 270, 271, 2'72 & 273 r/w 31 -fransponatiou ofcotton seeds and I 4t t9!2t

Kt...t ( n.l' \, l:: t)l ltDt) t\ h<1l(lt l IlP( l lanned gut|a Court cunr JN,II]C.

Adilabad SeL : of f O,r_lSTC No.20/21 ol IV AMMcum-IV alal L.B. Nagar 810/ll ol'

IA,IMI.'(..

Kharrnram 2'72 & 27 \ IPC & Sec.2,) (l).20 (2) ol'

COIPA 'fra trporlaliofl ofbanncd tobacco arld gutka Al .t l 4I, ,t 140, 2l 270 & l7l rPc & 20 (2) I l'ur( lrir:e aril sale of batrned gutka solo acctrscd 4178, I I 11.

OT COP IA r Sa ( i,f tot,acco products in his shrp and Jisobcying the rules inrposed by Govt. in No .l'1o.505/FSS- l/2 l,dt.6. 1.2 I

188. 271 & 273 IPC & 2(,

(2) & 5 ol'

co lPA 170 & 27-l IP( & 20 (2r of( O]'PA N)9121 of PJMFC,, Khalrnraur Ai & l 616'1/21 ol xvll AcMMNampally 4194t \ 1l so lc aecuscrl l2q8l2l ol'

PJMFC', Kharnnram Al & l Tri r 5i)ortali(rn ol-Afiber gutka 1.1 42t61 I i T arspor alion of gutka/pan ruasala r5 4230t. I -doI 108/21 of \.IMFC, .A.sifabad i3l/20 of AJMFC.

Nirmal 622119 ol'

,,\JMFC.

Nirmal At & l Prrr s ::sion ol' tobacco producLs illellally lbr salc 436t'. I 270 &273 IPC +6 I Pur Jr.;sc ard salc ofprohibitcd guka pockets Solc accuscd do46t2[ | 4'7 l'osi( siL )n o tutka packets at bus Al & l 4622/i I do- : l:,nd I rr salc Lllegally I 413/20 of AJMI;C, Nirmal A] do- r./s 14 rP(' & 20 (2) ol COl l'A -[ ran' 1'ortatirrn of banned tobacco Iroducts 4632/2 t 2.

Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, NIr. t-iajanand Chakravarthl , Mr. K. Surender, Mr. Praveen Kunrar \;eerjala, Ms. P. Radhika, Mr. Srinivas Reddy Balakisti, Iv s C. Sunitha Kumari. Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Mr. S.NI. Su;han. Vs. N Arttri, Mr. Y llala Murali.

Mr. llt ggrh l..rjr. I\lr. S.

Chandrasekh: r, Mr. V. \'adukrishna Sainatlr, lca rrred counsel

KL.J Crt.P. No.l-t) ofJ0201l hat.l'

appeailng on behall 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, therelbre, the same are disposed of by way of this comnron orclcr'

4. The main allegations against the petitioners - accused are that they were transporling, possessing, storing, selling and purchasing the banned products vr., tobacco / tambaku I gutka I khaini / zarda I 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 5ll of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (tbr short'lPC'); Sections - 20 (l),20 (2) and 5 reacl 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

s KL''I ("1 .!' ' t l1: ')l :tDt) <l hatclt (b) ol the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (lbr ;ltorr DS Act) respectivcly

5. 'Ihe respective learned counsel appeirring ,rn bc,ralf ol'the petitioners ir thc above crin-rinal petitions would ;r )mrt that thc contents of :omplaint / charge sheet lacks the ingredier.rts ol the offences all ged against the accused. For thc oll'erL,:cs under the provisious o 'FSS Act. only Food Safety Ol1ic.,r' is hi' inS l)o\ver to initiate crimi nal Proceedings against accuscd and tlrt' l,oli,:c are not having any lower to register a case for the olTcrrccs under the provisions o 'FSS Act. There is no inducement by thc petitioners and, tlrerefor:, o1I'ence under Section - 420 ol IPC locs not arise According t< them, the contents of complaint / char'.qe sheet are also lacking lhe insredients of the off'ences under S e,. tio rs - 269. 270, 27 1, 27i, 27 3, 328 and 336 ol' lPC.

i) Acc ording to thern, there is no violation ol Sect ons - 20 (l),20 (2) ard 5 read with 7 (2) and 7 (3) of tire C()IP hct. The lnvestigating Ofllcers / Complainants without ltrllou.ing the procedure lai, I down under the Code of Criminal Pr,rcedure, 1973

q KL..I Ci.P. No.l 52 ol 2D0 & btttch (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), have registered the cases ibr the oflence 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 - 5l (b) olthe DM Act are lacking in the complaint / charge sheet.

ii) With the above said subrnissions, the respective learned counsel sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crimes / calendar cases.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor referring to the principle laid down in the State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhanr 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 taying charge sheet '. zors nIn (sc) sltt '. 2016 cti. L.J. 24ol

3. 2019 scc online Bom 1857

l() Ll..t ( t, P \, i5:,,:tt:ttlthd,.t) against restr ective accused in the afbrcsaid crimes / (.alen(lar cases. According to hirn, the accused were transportintr , 1'ros5s5sing, storing. selllnq and purchasing the banned pr.odrrct; r,2.. tobacco / tarnbaku / gutka / khaini I zarda / pan masa ir respectively According tI hirn, the accused have to face either nvcstrgation or trial and prc vc their innoce nce, and instead o1- doin !.r so, they have flled the pre sent criminal petitions under Seciion - .[li2 ol- Cr.P.C. rr liich cannc t be considered at this stage. i) \Vith the above said subrnissiirns. lcarned Public Prosecutor s, rught to dismiss the above criminal petil ic,r1s.

7. In vieu, of the above rival submissiorls, ir is a1'rposite to extract the r:lcvant provisions of lPC, CO.[P Act, tSS Act. ED Act and DM Act, which are as under:

REI,EWP(.

"188. )isobedience to order duly promulgated b1 public servan t.--!Vhoever, knowing that, by an order pror ttlgatcd by a prrblic servant lawfully empowercd to prornulgt te such ordcr, re is directed to abstain from a ccrtain act. or to take cerlain order with cerlain prope(y in his possession cr undcr his tnr nagernent, disobeys such direction, shall, l sucr disobe< icncc causes or tends to cause obstt trction,

il KI,.J Crl.P. No. 152 ol 2010 & hatch annoyarrce or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, bc punishcd with simplc imprisonment for a term which rnay extend to one month or with fine which may extend to trvo hundred rupces, or with both; and if such disobedionce causcs or trcnds to cause danger to human life, health or saf'ety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of eithcr description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which rnay extend to orte thousand rupees, or with both.

Explanation.-lt is not necessary that the oftender should intend to produce hann, or contetnplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. [t is sufficient that he knows of the order rvhich 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 r.rot pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobcys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has comrnitted thc offence dcfined in this section."

"269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to lifc.-Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which lre knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infcction of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with irnprisonrnent of either description for a tenn which may extend to six months, or witlr fine, or with both."

l2 L l'.t ( i l l' \c l.\.' .tl )():() t\ l,dtLh "270 Malignant act likely to spread infection of rliserrse dang :rous to life.-Whoever rnalignantll does a ny act whiclL is, and which hc knows or has reason to belicr.i: to tre, likell tu spread the infection of any disease danlgr:rous to life, shall be punished with in.rprisomrient ( l' eitllcr descr ption for a term which may extend to two years, or with ine, or with both."

*271. Disobediencc to quarantitre rule.-Whoever know ngly disobeys any rule made and pronrulgatrcl by the Cove ntlent for putting any vessel into a state ol quarirntine, or fb regulating the intercourse of vessels in a siatc of quara rtine with thc shore or with othcr vesscls. ,rr lbr regul: ting the intercourse between places rv relc an inl'ect ous disease prevails and other places, ,fiell bc puuislrcd with imprisomncr.rt of cither descriptiorr fi r a tcil.t which may extend to six months, or with fine, or wit r both." "272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for stlc. -- Whoczer adulterates any article of food or drink. sc as to tnake ;uch article noxious as food or drink, intending ro scll such zrticle as food or drink, or knowing it to bc lil:ely that thc sanc will be sold as food or drink, shall be Junishcd with inprisonlnent of either description for a temr rvlrirh may e (end to six months, or with fine which rnay ertend o one th rusand rupees, or with both."

"273, Salc of noxious food or drink.-Whoever ;r:lls, or' offers rr cxposes for sale, as food or drink, anv article ivhich Itas bc:u rcndercd or lras becorne rroxious, or is in a strrrc unfit f rr lbod or drink. kr.rowing or having reason to llciicr c that th, salne is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished

l3 KI,,J Crl.P. No l of2020 & horch with imprisonment of eitllcr dcscription for a tcnn which may extend to six months, or with fine which lnay extend Io one thousand rupces, or with both."

"328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., rvith intent to commit an offencc.-Whoevcr administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poisoti 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 off'cnce or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punishcd u'ith imprisonment of either description for a tenn rvhich may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to {ine." "336. Act endangering life or pcrsonal safety of others.

Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal saf'ety ofothers, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a tenn which may extend to threc months, or with tine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both." "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivcry ol property.-Whoever cheats and thcreby dishonestly induccs the person deceived to deliver any property to any persoll, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or an)'thing which is signcd or sealed, and which is capable of being convertd into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of eitl.rer description for a tem which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liablc to fine."

1.1 KL,J ('rl.l'. to I t] )l 2Ut) & httch "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherancc of conl! non intcntion. When a criminal act is rk:,ne by scvcr rl pcrsons in furtl.rerance of the commoll int:rtion rrf all, erch t'f such persons is liable lor that act in tl.ri: sarne rnanr er as if it u,ere done by hirn alone."

"51I. l'unishment for attempting to comnrit olfcnces punir hable with imprisonment for lifc o r othcr impr sonnrent.-Whoever attempts to comrnit ar of-fcrrce punis rable by this Code with imprisonmcnt fo ' litb or irnpri ionment, or to causc such an offeltcc trr be contrnitt,:d, and irL such attempt does any act towards the cornr issiou of the o lbncc, shall, where no cxpress provis:on is nradc by this ( odc for thc punishrnent of such atteml)t, be tunishcd u,ith imprisonrncnt of any description provitled {irr lhe offen, e. lor a tenn which may extend to ,rnc-lra l ol thc irnpri onment for life or, as thc case may be, oneJrirl{ olthe longe,t tenn of imprisonrncnt provided for rhat of-elce. or u,itl.r s uch Iinc as is provided for the offence, or u'ith both.'' REt,II\"\N' I' I'RO\/ISIONS UNDER COTP ACI "5.

Pr ohibition of advertisemcnt of cigarettes arrl other tobac:o products.

t5 KL,.I Crl.P. No.l52 r,[2D0 t& harch promotes the use or consumption of cigarettes or any othcr tobacco products.

(2) No person, for any direct or indirect pecuniary bencfit, shall- (a) display, cause to display, or permit or authorise to display any advertisement ofcigarettcs or any other tobacco product; or (b) sell or cause to sell, or permit or authorise to scll a film or video tape containing advcrtisemcnt of cigarettcs 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 docunrcnt rvhich is or which contains atl advedisetnent of cigarettcs or any other tobacco product; or (d) erect, exhibit, fix or retain upon or over any land, building, wall, hoarding, fratne, post or structuro or upon or in any vehicle or shall display in any manner whatsoevcr 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) adve(isement 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 failurc to give spccificd rvarning and nicotine and tar contents.

l6 KI..J (.rl.t \'.,.15.. tJf20:{) <9 batLh

(1) 1.Dy person who produces or manufactures cillinettoj or toba;co producls, which do not contain. either on tlte pack rge or on their label. the specified tvaminli and the nico'ine and tar contonts, shall in the casc of first < orrvictiorr be p unishable witlr imprisonment for a tcnn w rich uray extct tl to two years, or with fine which may cxternl to li\.e ttrour and rupees, or with both, and for thc s:clrnd or subs( quent conviction, with irnprisomnent for a te rn which may :xtcnd to five years and with fine which may 3xtend to ten tt ousarrd rupees.

(2) A ry pc:rson rvho sells or distributes cigarettes o. tttba(co prodt cts lvhich do not contain either on the package or on their abcl. the specified wanting and the nicotint, and tar contc rts shall in thc casc of first conviction bc prLnrshatrle with rnprisonmcnt lbr a tcnn, which may extenrl lo one year, rr with finc which rnay extend to one thousanrl rupcos, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent co rlrctic,n, with i nprisonment fbr a tcnn which may extend to t,vo years and w tlr tirre which may extend to three thousand ru recs." "7. I estrictions on trade and commcrce in, and production, supplv and distribution of cigaret.es and other rohacco products.- ( l) No pcrson shall, directly or indirectly, protluce, sr rpply or distrib ltc 6 cigarettes or any other tobacco product; r,Lnless cvery rackage of cigarettes or any other tobacco l,toducr.s produc:d. supplied or distributed by hirn bears thereor, or on its labr I suc]r spccified waming including a pictorial \vaming as may bc prescribed.

(2) N() pcrson slrall carry on trade or colnfilerce in cij]]l.cttes or any othcr tobacco products unless everv packalre of

t'1 KL,J ('rl.P. No.lt ol )t)10 & borch cigarettcs or any other tobacco products sold, supplicd or distributcd by him bears thereon, or on its label, the spccified waming.

(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 irnported by hirn bears thcreon, or on its label, the specihed wamir.rg.

(4) The specified waming shall appear on not less than one of the largest panels of the package in which cigarettes or any other tobacco products have been packed for distribution, sale or supply for a valuable considcration.

(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."

RF],I,F],VANT PROVISIONS UNDER F.S.S. ACt:

"58. Pcnalty for contraventions for which no specific pcnally is providcd.-Whoever contravencs any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereundcr, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately

t8 Kl. l ( rl.t' \ I :: t)l l|:tt & hdtu lt prov dcd in this Chapter, shall be liable to a penalir rvl:ich may :xtend to two lakh rupees."

"59. l'unishment for unsafe food.-Anv pexor who, whet lcr by hirnself or by any other person or1 hir; behalf, rnanr faotures for sale or storcs or sells or dishibutcs or impo 1s any articlc of food for human consurnption which is unsal e, shall bc punishable,- (i)wlrerc such failure or colltravention docs not lesult in injuq , wilh imprisonment for a tenn which may ,xtend to six rrouths and also witlr finc which may extend to rxre lakh l'upc€ i;

(ii)wrere such failure or contravention results irr l nongriev,,u5 injury, with imprisonment for a tenn wl ric,tr may cxten I to one year and also with fine whiclr may cxtend to tlrree akli rupees;

(iii) u hcre such failure or corltravention results in a Bnevous injurl , rvith imprisonment for a term which may e xtend tir six yi ars and also with llne which rnay cxtelld to ive la-dr rupcer ;

(iv) w rere such failure or contravention results in denh, with imprir onrncnt tbr a tenn which shall not be less thiur sevcn years but rvhich may extend to imprisonment for lif'e and also u ith fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees." RELEVAN" PROVISION UNDER E.D. ACT:

"3. P€ nalfy-'. Any person disobeying any regulation rr ord,:r rnade tnder this Act shall be deemed to have cornr itted zLn of'fenc: punishable under section 188 of thc Indian Penal Codc (15 ol 1860 )."

KL.J C.rl.P No.l5l ol 1020 & hotch RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER D.M. ACT:

"51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.- (l) Whoever, rvithout rcasonable cause- (1) Whoever, without reasonable cause (a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central Govemment or the State Govcmment, or a person autl.rorised by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the discharge ofhis lunctions undcr this Act; or (b) refuses to cotnply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Govemment or the State Govcmment or the National Executive Comrnittee or the State Executive Committee or thc District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable rvith imprisonment lor a teml which rnay extelid to one year or with fine, or with both, and il such obstruction or refusal to comply witl.

r directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a tenn which may extend to two years. notes on clauses Clauses 5l to 58 (Secs. 51 to 58) seeks to lay down what will constitute an off'ence in tenns of obstruction of the functions under the Act, lalse claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of false waming, failure of an officer to perfom 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 lor penalties for these offences."

8. The /r,s 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 Telanganaa had an occasion to deal with the issues involved in the present criminal petitions. After referring to various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, a. Crl.P. No.373 t of 2018 & batch, decided on 27.08.2018

2t) KL.J ( rl.P ;l''.152 ol )020 & botch COT'P Act rnd also the principie laid down by the /r.pcx Couft and other High Courls in several judgments, the learn,:,3 Single.ludge had framed the issues. which are as unde[:

"l ) Whr ther the respondent/ Sub-Inspcctor of Police, is co rpetent to inves rgate into thc offence punishablc under Scctrons j4 and 59( I ) of FSS Act?

2) Whet rer the petitioners in all the petitions are foun,l (romrnitting any act rvith malicious ilttention, with knowledge a td reason to befievc hat such act likely to spread the infection o'any disease dangerorLs to [ile'] And whcther the pctitioncrs selling ,ri- offcring or exposinl frrr sale as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has bccome noxious or is in a state unti. lor fcod or drink or :eason to believe that the same is noxious as frxtd or dr-ink? lf so, ar: they liable to be prcceeded for thc offenc: punishable under Se :tions 270 afi,273 IPC.?"

9. Iller an elaborate discussion and oll cc,trsideration of various asp,:cts, the lcarned Single .Iudge has held ttrat the police cannot take cognizance of the offbnce, to in!estigite into and fiie charge shee against the accused therein for the offr;nce punishable under Secti)ns - 54 and 59 (1) of FSS Act, as t.hey were not empowered undcr the said Act to launch the prosc< rrtion, but only Food Sal'et I Officel appointed by the Govern lent alone is cotnpetent t, r launch prosecution for those two o ffe t<:es. With the

2l Kt,..l Crl.P- No.l52 oJ 2010 & borch said findings, the leamed Single Judge has quashed the proceedings where the offences are under Sections - 54 and 59 ol 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 - 3fi) of the FSS Act and the rnanufacture, sale or exposing for sale of tobacco etc., is govemed 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 olfence 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

')) LL..l (11 | \,) l5:.'t )t):t) ,l hot.h khaini or ch :wing tobacco by itsctf is not an offenc,i irnd:r Section - 270 ol- IPC Pan Masala is not a tobacco protluct to l'all within the pun'ieu, of (IOTP Act. Theretbre, the provisions ol the (IOTP Act have no app ication, thereby registration of crirne otr the qround of violatirrn of Sections - 7 (l) (2) (3) (5) and Scction - 2(r of COTP Act is an il egality. Thr: learned Single Judge further held that registration rf c:Lses for the ollbncc under Section - 20 (2) read with 7 i2) cl COTP Act is illegal. With the sai,l linrlings, the learned Sing e .ludge has quashed the crimes and ca cnda' cases in thc said _iudg nent.

11. h Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru Vasadhi Tripati Rao v. The iitate of Andhra Pradeshs, a learnetl Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravti had also an occasion to deal with the said issue. After relbring to the contentions clthe respective parties therein, various provisions of IPC, FSS Act, COTP Act and relying on the principl,: laid down in Anand Ran dhani Chaurasias, Joseph Kurian r'. State of '. :ozo 1 r1 .\LT (c .1.) 2 t i (ArHC)

2l KL.J Crl.P. No.ll ol 2(D0 & hatch Kerala6, Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhant, M/s. Pcpsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., v. State of U.P.7, Sanjay Anjay Stores v. Union of Indias, Boop Singh Tyagi v. Statee, State of llaryana v. Bhajan Lalr0 and Chidurala Shyamsubdera, the learned Single Judge has quashed the FIRs / Calendar Cases. The leamed Single Judge refering to the law laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera held that despite the said authoritative pronouncement of law, status quo continues. The said judgment attained linality. Even then, the police are registering cases against accused on the very same allegations fbr the very same offences.

i) Referring to the provisions of Sections 153, 188, 269,270, 211, 272, 273, 284, 328, 353 of IPC, the learned Judge in Sri Jaganath Enterpriscs' h.ld 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 circumstances only where there is violation of Sections - 4,5,6,7 and l0 of thc COIP Act. By referring to the principle o. tggs (t) scl zll ?. 201I (2) C mes 250 t. 2017 scc online cal 16323 '- zoo2 cd.r:. z\l2 ro. 1992 supp (l) SCC 335

1,1 KL.'I (,/ /, \, /.il ,t :t))t) & bdtch laid down t y the Apcx Court in Bhajan Lalto an,l VI/s. Pcpsico India Hold ngs (Pvt) Lttl.7, the leamed Single .lud61c has quashed the proceedi ngs in various crimes / calendar cases.

12. \nother learned Single Judge ol'the lJigh Court of Andhra Pra,lesh at Amaravati in V. Nageswara F::ro v. State of Andhra Prr,deshrt had also an occasion to deal with the said issue and agree( with the principle laid down in (lhidurala Shvamsubd era.

13. Ir Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan'. ttc Al)ex Couft rvhile dealirg with tegality of the order passecl b1, the Bombay High Court in a batch of criminal writ petition:; ,rr.rd criminal applications rvhjch were filed chatlenging the regi-.trirtion ol FlRs tbr tlre offbn:es under Sections - 188,272,273 and 12tt ollPC and Sections - 2t, anci 30 of the FSS Act where there is irn allcgation of transportatio:r and sale of Cutka / Pan Masala etc , held that the judgrr.rent of Borrbay Iligtr Court is contrary to thr: provisions of the Act and aw laid down by it. With the said finJing, tlie Apex Court remitt ed the matter to the Bon-rbay H igh ('rtr-tr1 lor fresh rr. f0l0 Supreme AP) 348

KI,.] Ct'|.P. No.l5l of2020 & hatch consideration on the issue that whether the aforesaid oflences are made out in the FIRs, which are subject matter of the cases pending before the Bombay High Courl.

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 transpoftation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned products v2., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini I zarda I pan masala etc., respectively. in Chidurala Shyamsutrdera, the leamed 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 hutnan life, it would not spread or infect or cause any disease on account of transportation and if those products

l6 KL.,I ( I " , I :' .,1 :(t:t) <\ l\tt(h u'e consuuled by hurnan being, it would ,:ertainly cause damage to the health.

''herefore, transportation of khaini or che,ving t obacco is not by itself is not an offence under llection - 270 of IPC and it would lall rv thin liection 270 of lPC."

15. S cction - 272 of IPC rnakes punishable ;rr oll'ence by a person, who adulterates any article of food or drink Thereflore, the said sectior would only come into play if loc rl or drink is adultelatecl. -l hcle is no definition ol 'adulteratior'' in IPC. -Ihe definition ol 'adulterant' is found in the provisions oI the FSS Act. Section - 3 l) (a) of the FSS Act deals with 'achLlerant' which means a rni terial which could rnake the 'food' rrtsali: or substandard or rnis-branded. According to Section - 212. ot' IPC, i1- a material is rrscd to make the tbod unsafe/sub-sta tdard or misbrandeil, the r only the oll-ence would be attractecl. Wlereas, as discussed sulra, the allegation in the plesent batch of cascs is with regard to tra lspoftation, possession, storage, sale ar (1 purchase of banned prodrrcts r.,L., tobacco / tambaku i gutka / kraini I zarda I pan nrasala € tc., lespectively. Therefore, according rt., this Cour-t. the said alleg rtion does not fall within the ambit o1'St:r:riorr - 272 ol

KL..I Ctl.P. No.l5: of2020 <q h. ch lPC. Ther-efore, I agree with the principle laid down by the leamed Single Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala Shyamsubdero, Sri Jaga.rath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raoll.

16.

In Joseph Kurian6, the Hon'ble Supreme Couft held that lbr Section - 272IPC to be attractcd, the following should be present. ( I ) That the arlicle 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 'lood 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 lood 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 drink and what is stated to be mixed in it is not clearly established by any cogent material as an 'adulterant' for the olfence under Section -272lPC to be pressed into service.

t3 K t...1 ( i P \ l.-,,1 1t|',] tt h,th'1,

17. r rs t'ar as Section - 328 of IPC is c,rncentcd. in the satne jud-rlment it r,vas held as follows:

"10. ln t rdcr to prove oifence under Section 32B thc prosectrtion is rcquired kr provc that the substance in question rvas a poison. or any stupciyir g. intoxicating or unwholesome drug ctc, tha tlre a:cused atlminisl:rcd the substancc to the cornplainanl or t:auscd the complair aut to take such substance, that he did so \rith inlcnt to oausc hu 1 or knowing it to bc likely l9 that he u'ould t rercby cause irurt. or yith thc intcntion to comrnit or facilitate thc conrrnission of an o ll'en, e. lt is, therefbre, essential for the prosccut ('n to provc that the i ccused was directly rcsponsible for adrninistr:-)ng ll()isor) ctc. or ca rsrng it tu be taken by any person, through anolhcr......." Tobacco doc s iror fit into this delinition.

18. St ction - 273 of IPC deals with sale of a roxious fbod or drink. and a r pcr which, whoever sells, or o t'fers rr exfoses li)r sale. as lbod or cirink, any arlicle which has been r,:lder,:cl or has become noxi rus, or is in a state unfit for food or rlrir k. knowing or having rcasor r to Selicve that the same is noxious as li)od or drink, shall be puni;hed with imprisonlnent specified therr.in. 'fherelore, ila person o fers for sale a "food or drink" any articlc nhich has becorre noxir,us or is in a state ol- unfit for "food or clir-rk''. Thus, the said secti )n would apply, u,hcn an article whic r has bccome

t9 Kl..t ( rl.P. No.l52 o12020 & batch noxious or which has been rendered noxious. It also applies to tbod or drink onty. As held in Sri Jaganath Entcrprisess. tlrc word 'noxious' is not defined in 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 transpoftation, possession, storage, sale and purchase of banned ploducts vrz., tobacco / tambaku / gutka / khaini I zarda I pan masala etc., respectively. Therefore, according to this Court, the contents of the complaint/charge sheet lacks the ingredients ol Section - 273 of lPC.

19. As far as section - 188 IPC is concemed , 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 rvith the knowledge; and such disobedience of the duly promulgated order should cause a danger to the human life etc. In

.1t) K L"J ( rl.l'. \o l5) t 20lo & hotch Iloop Singlr 'l'ragie a Division Bench ot'AllahaLatl Iligh Court held that ri1 ;ht to promulgatc the ordinance/order :, also an issue which is rcing raised, because under the rSS Act, the Conrmissior er of lrood Saf-ety alone has thc aulho't.y to pass the ordcrs only f'thc article of 'tbod' call causes tlange' ,',r i:, injurious to hcalth.

20. Ir N.l-. Ranta Rao r'. -fhe State of A.P., r't'p. bv Public Prosecutorr: u,hile dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 of PC, thc learned Single Judge ol the cornbined High Court of Anr hra Pradesh held as under:

"i) Even if thc allegation that the petitic rrt:r c,)nducted public meetings at three rrad jLnctions conttary to the pennission accorled ft r conducting of a public rneeting only at rnc s1'ecified place is true. such a direction unoer S :ction 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could h,tve b,,en given only by the Superintendent ot the A;sistant Superintendent of Police of the D strict but not by any of their subordinates. lf st ch a perrnission is granted under Scction 3() ol tlie Police Act. 186 I and is violated. Sect orr ll5 (l) (a) of Codc of Criminal Procedrrr<'

rr. Criminal l'etiti, n No,i323 of2009, decidccl on 17.09.200S

I KL.J C .P. No.li) ol )U0 & hokh rnandates that the cornplaint in this regard has to he made by the public seruant concerned or some other person to whotn such a public servant is adrninistratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section I 88 of Code oi Crirninal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed hy the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant perrnission for the public lneeting and thereforc, the colnplaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section I 95( I )(a) of Code of Crirninal Procedure.

6) That apart, the olfence alleged to have been cornrnitted 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 independent of the same.

Even otherwise, the conduct of public rneeting 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 concernecl, which cau also be covered by Section 283 of the lndian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak

i2 KL.,I (tll'\ ij:t,t )l):t) .\i hutch lbout the traffic jarn caused by the road sror.v. lut, when the conduct of the public rneeti rq at east at one placc has been perrnitted and if the lathering fol that public meeting resulted in , Lny inconvenience by way of obstructinl the traffic, the salne cannot be considered t,r be 'vith necessary guilty rzens ,'ed to constru(,the ( xistcnce of an ollence punishable under Inctian I'enal Code. Under the circurnstances, none of lre offences alleged can be said to lrave any t:asonable basis and in any vierv, the c onrplaint/charge sheet being in violatiorr of I ection 195 ( I ) (a) of Code of Crirr inal I rocedure, has to fail.

i I As the cornplaint has failed due tr, rts u nsustainability, the proceedings in lheir eltirery have to fail, though the l"r acctsed a one approached this Courr by way of th is C riminal Petition."

2l . Ir Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The Strrc ol Andhra Pradcsh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, \\'cst Godavari Districtr3, w lere in by relying on various judgntents including N.T. Rama Raor2 atrd also the guidelines laid down by t re AL-,ex Couft in Bhajan Lalr0 more paflicularly. guicleline No.(r. rrhich says that Ir. Crinrinal Petiti ru No. 15248 of 2016. decided on 26.10.2016

KI' -I Crl.P. i\!o.15) ol )010 & harch where there is an cxpress legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions ol the Code or the concerned Act (under which a crirninal procecding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where therc is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, pr-oviding efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, it was held that the proceedings in the said C.C. wcre quashcd by exercising power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It rvas also further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to teclinical 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 puryort of Section - 195 (l) (a) of Cr.P.C.

22.

Vidc Notillcation No.501/FSS-l/2020, dated 06.0 I .2020. the Cornmissioner of Food Safety, Telangana Directorate of lnstitute of Prevcntive Medicine, Public Health I-abs and Food (Health) Administration, Narayanguda,, Hyderabad, restricted the manut'acture, storage, distribution, transportation and sale olgutka / pan masala, which contains tobacco and nicotine, as ingredients and chewing tobacco products, like chap tobacco, pure

K t.../ ( l.i'. ,, ti. )t :tD0 .l h,11.h tobacco. khrini, kharra, scented tobacco / ilavourc,l lobacco or by whatever ni nre locally it is called packed in sachets / pouches / package in he entire Stage of Telangana under FSli .Act, 2006. It is for one year. Vide Notification No.505iFSS-1/2021, dated 06.01.2021, the sarne was extended for one morc yr)ar'. As per the information f urnished and instructions received, scveral writ petitions we:e filed challenging the said Notificati rns before this Courl as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Cour1. A Division Bench of this Court d,:clined to entertain some writ petitions ,tn ttre ground that the Hon ble Supreme Court seized of the said irisue. It is also relevant to r ote that the Hon'ble Supreme Court renranded back the matter to this Court.

Therefore, such a notificatitn can only be issued fbr en ergerlcy situations and for prohibiting thc distribution and sale of a ry article of a food cannot bc lost sight :1'. -l'hereflore, in view of th: law laid down in the above judgment: including the judgments in Chidurala Shyamsubdert, S,'i Jaganath Enterprisess and V. Nageswara Raorr. According to this Court, Section - 18 i of IPC will not attract to the alleg,rtions leveled against the pelitioners herein in this batch of crirninal pt'titions.

l5 Kt-,.t Crl.P. No.l52 ol 202O & bar<h

23. As f-ar 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 thc said provision, whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesomc drug, or other thing with intent to cause llurt to such person, or rvith intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an oI'fence or knorving it to be likely that he will thereby cause hun, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terni rvhich rray extend to ten years, and shall also be liabte to fine. Therefore, there slrould be administering poison, intoxicating etc., with ir-rtent to cause huft to such person or with intent to commit or to lacilitate the cornmission ol'an of'fencc or knowing it to be likely that he will 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

l6 kL../ ( ,.1 p \ | \: ,,1 :u:tj t\ h0 lt

24. ,z,s lar as Sectirrn - 316 of IPC is conccnrcri. it deals with an act endt ngering lil-c or personal sat'ety ol- oth.'rs. z:nd as per which. wht,evel docs any act so rashly ()r ne.rligerrtly as to endanger h.rman life or the personal safety ol r lhcrs, shall be punished with inrprisonment ol- either description 1i,r a tc:rm which may extend lo three months, or with flnc which rna / cxte nd to two hundred anc filt1- rupecs, or witti both. [n the conr rlaints / charge sheets, there is no such allegation of rash arrd ncgli-l:cnt act rvhich endangers h rr-nan life or personal safety of othels;. -l'herefbre, according tc this Court, the contents ol the cornplrrints r' charge sheets lacks he ingredients of Section - 336 of II'}C

25. A:; far as Section - 420 of IPC is concernel, it deals with Clieating an< dishoneslly inducing delivery ol plop:r y. '[-hcre is no such indu,:ement either at the inception ol at a latrr stage. Thus, the contents of complaints / charge sheet lack the ingre,lients ol Section - 420 ol IPC.

2(r. As far as Section - 269 of IPC is concernerl. rt dr:als with negligent act ikely to spread infection ofdiscase danp.erous to life,

KL.J Crl.P. No.l52 ol 2020 & batch and as per which, whocvcr unlarvlully 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 ol'either description for a tcn.- rvhich 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 ofcascs, such ingredients ale lacking and, therelbre, Section - 269 ofIPC does not arise in the present batch olcases.

27. ln 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. Theretbre, it cannot be said that Sections - 269, 27 0, Z7 l, 27 2 and 21 3, 328, 336 and 420 of IPC are attracted to the cases in this batcli.

28. As far as the off-ences under FSS Act is concemed, as already discussecl above, in Chiclurala Shyantsubdel'], the Ieamed Single Judge following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Bhajan Lalro hcld that the police al'e

d! / a,i /, \i i i. )t :t):!1 &btlilt incompeten to take cognizance of the ofl'ences punishable under Sections - i4 and 59 (l) of the FSS Act, investrgatin-g into the olfences alc ng with other olfences under the prcvis otts of the lPC. It was furth:r held that filing charge sheet is a gravc illegatity, as the Food S,rfety Offlcer alone is competent to inrcstigatc and to file charge sheet following the Rules laid down und:r Sections - 4l and 42 of FiS Act. In the present case, the police have registered the crime firr the offences under Sections - 188, ::70 and 273 of IPC. Then:tbre, in the present batch of cases, (:nlertilining the complaints, filing the charge sheets by the potice is contrary to the principle lai I down in Chidurala Shyamsubdera.

29. With regard to the offenccs unricr (lr -) l'[' Act, it is rele vant to mention the objects and the reasons r,t- the said Act itself clearll state that the act is meant to prohibit th,: r Ldvt:rtisement ot, and to pr ovide for the regulation of trade and co rrrnelce in, and production, ;upply and distribution of, cigarettes an I rrtht:r tobacco products anrI lbr matters connected therewith or inciclent;rl thereto. A reading c f the said objects of the said Act woirl<l ro eal that a total ban of tobacco products was not envisagecl by the said Act.

.19 KL,J Crl.P. No. t 52 of2020 & hotch The Parliament merely lelt it expcdient to control the adveftisement and sale of tobacco products. As noted earlier in thc 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 ol- cigarette and other tobacco ploducts only. No person, rvho is engaged in the production, supply or distribution ol cigarettes or other products shall adverlise the sarne. Similarly, no person having the control over a medium can advertise cigarettes or tobacco products, arld no person shall be a parl of any adveftisement.

30. Section - 7 of the COTP Act deals with the imposition of restriction on the sale, trade, commerce of tobacco products unless 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. [n addition, Section - 6 of the COTP Act, prohibits the sale ol cigarettes or other tobacco products to a person who is under the age of l8 years are in an area within 100 yards of any educational institution.

-l() Kt..t (ri l' \ l.:t)t :t1:t) <\ htk.lt

31. ,r reading of this Act, parlicularly Sectiors -.1. 5,6 and 7 clearly shru,s that there is no general ban or genelal prohibition on the nlanr rlacture/sale ol tobacco products. 22 \\ liirt i:; barrcd is rttercIy, the :ale of these products to a person, rvho is bclc,rv the age of 18 years and in an area within 100 yar<ls o1' an eilucational institution. l'he other aspects covered by Seci ions . and 7 ol- thc COl P Act. lcal with the advertisement and the warning. which is to be conta ned on a package, in which the tobacco lrroduct is packed. 'lhis is a regulatory mechanism only. lhe'relrrc. rrccording to this (-o rrt. the above said allegations ()l' lt trlst)offation, possession, rtolage, sale and purchase ofbanned lolracco 1:rroducts will not attra :t thr; olfcnce under Sectior-r -7 of t he C'( )'l P 1\ct.

32, A: tbr as Section - 20 (2) of the CO'I'P Act rs c()rlccrned, as stated abo ve, the allegations against the petitioner: ru r,:spective complaints charge sheets are that they were lransl)o11ing, posscssing. storing, selling and purchasing the brnrred tobacco products to he customers illegatly i order t() [,ain ,vrongful profits.

.11 KL.,I Crl.P. No.tf ol)020 & hotth 20 (2) of the COTP Act lor bctter appreciation ol the case and to decide the issue in question, and tl-rc sarne is as under: "20. Punishmcnt for failure to givc specificd rvarning and nicotine and tar contcnts.- (1)...

(2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettcs or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the specified waming and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the case of lirst conviction be punishablc rvith 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 tcrm which may cxtend to two years and with fine wl.rich rnay extend to three thousand rupees."

33. Thus, Section - 20 of COTP Act deals with punishnrent 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 can'ying on trade or commerce in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products. In vierv of the same, the contents of the complaints / cl.rarge sheets lack the ingredients ol Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act. Even, there is no allegation that

.11 KL.,/ (-tl.l' \. lj:,tl 'o)t1 '\ l\tkh the seized l roducts do not contain labels with sta tltor) warning. Thus, regis ering the crimes lbr the said oft'encc against the petitioners i; not only contrary to Section - 20 (2) oICOTP Act, but also colrtrary to the principle laid down rn Chidurala Shyamsubd era. ln view ol the same, the oft'ence rtnder Section - 20 (2) ol'(IOTP Act is also liable to be quashod against the petitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree wit h the principle laid down [,y the learned Single Judges of the *gh Court of Andhra Pra iesh in Chidurala Shyamsubtlera, Sri .Iaganath Entcrprises' and V. Nageswara Raorr.

34. ror the foregoing discussion and tlrr: aut,iroritative principle of aw, Criminal Petition Nos. 3768, 387'), 40,16,4071 , 4098, 4099. 4100, 4102, 414r, 4t51, 4157,4182, 11E1,4217, 4249. 425r, 4258,4262, 4277, 4405, 4415,4542, 1615,4640, 4681. 4121 , 4775 and 4825 of 2021 are allowed quashing thc proccedings , tgainst the petitioners therein in the res rectir e crimes rnentioned th:rein. Since the proceedings in tht: albrt:said Crirrinal I'etitions arc quashed against the respective ptlitioners, the respectivc Sr ation House Otl-rcers / Investigating t.)fficers are

.+3 KI,,J Crl.P. No.l52 ol 1020 & bokh hereby directed to retum the seized property / r,ehicles on proper identification and verification of ownership under duc acknowledgment.

35. Further, Criminal Petition Nos. 152, 153, 155, 162 & 5826 of 2020,3498,3500, 3509, 3514, 40'70, 4110, 4119,4140, 4178, 41,94, 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 retum of the seized property / vehicle and the Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in alt the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.

K. t,AKSIINIAN, J o5rH JULY,2o21 Note: L.R. copy to be marked.

(B/o.) Mgr

IION'BT,E SRI JUSTICB K. I,AKSIIN{AN CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5619, 5638, 642L OF 2O2O; 3314, 6926,736L,739L, 7455. 7543. 7a73.7885. 8116. 8461. 8716, 8998. 9020, 9044,90s3, 9065. 9068. 907L. 9072. 9073, 9077. 9079. 9095, 909a. 9099. 9LOL, 9LO5, 9LO7,9LL2. 9LL6, 9L2L,9L24. 9L43, 9L53, 9L64, 920s. 9226,9252, 9256, 9264, 9266. 9294, 929a, 9339, 934L, 9343. 936a.946L. 9469. 9449. 9s18, 9534. 9569. 9583. 95a7. 9599.9629. 96s1, 96s5, 9753, 9759. 9764. 9788. 9793,9A64, 10195, 10311 & 10314 0F 202L AND 308, 469, 47L. 537. 559. 574, 598, 606, 615, 627. 759. 776. 777, 7a3. 78a,947. lL3L. LL4L. LL92. L20s. 1206, L369, L472, 1606. L751, L756. L772. La53. LaS4. La63. 1934, L944.2o,o+, 2042,2047,2050, 2L54, 2376. 2432. 2433, 2459.2635, 2640. 2733, 2764, 2422, 2423. 29AL.3040. 3093, 3094, 3110, 3233,3290,3297, 3362,3373, 3378, 3386, 3543. 3673. 375A, 3769. 3824. 4055. 40a7.4103. 4LO4, 4L54,4159, 4209, 4307, 4322, 4323 e 4586 0F 2022.

COMMON ORDER:

All these Criminal Petitions are filed by the respectivc petitioners under Section - 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 19'73, to quash the proceedings in ttre respectivc

K!.,.1 ( ,1.P. ,\i). ta e t'i :t))0.1 h t.h ) C'rimcs/Cal< ndal Cases/Sessions Cases registered I c,r' tht: offences under Secticns - 188,269,270,272,213,328,336li 420 read rvith 34, 149,51 I ol IPC; Sections - 3 (m), 20 (2),21 (l t. 2l (.2), 22,7

(3) ancl 7 5) of the Cigarettes and Other Tot,ai:co Products (l'rohibition of Advertisernent and Regulation r1' Trade and Cornmerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) A,ct, 2003 (for shorr'CO'IF Act') and Sections - 58 and 59 (i) of the F-ood Saf'ety and Standarc s Act, 200(r (tbr short 'FSS Act').

2. l ht nature of allegations in all these otf,:rrces relate to transpo ttat ioi r, sale, possession, manulbcture, st(rrage, etc. of tobacco 1;ror ucts including khaini, zarda, pan rual;ala and other such allegcdl r harmlul and banned products

3. Hr ar-d learned counscl for the respectir t: parlies and learned Fubli: I)rosecutor appearing on behalf of the lespondents - State. ald per used the record

4. Pen sal ol'the record would reveal that the ,'is involved in this batcl.r of ( rases had already dealt with by this ()or rt extensively vidc common ordcr dated 05.07.2021 in Cri.P. No. 152 ,rf 2020 and batch rvhich vas repoltcd as Mohd. Janreel .,\hmed v,,Statc of

KL,J Crl.P. No.56lt) o/ 2020.l huxh Telanganar. This Court in the said case by relying on varior-rs decisions of thc Supreme Court explained and interpreted the relevant provisions with which the Petitioners herein are charged.

5. With regard to off'ences under Sections - 58 and 59 (i) ol the FSS Act, 2006 it was held by this Courl that police cannot initiate prosecution and invcstigate the oflbnces under the FSS Act, 2006. Thc po\\,er lo initiate prosecution is confered only on tl'rc Food Sa1'ety Oflcers appointed under the FSS Act, 2006. Furtlicr, this Court lield that 'tobacco' does not fall within the definition of 'lbod' under the FSS Act, 2006. Therefore, the Petitioners herein cannot be charged for offences under Sections - 58 and 59 (i) ofthe FSS Act, 2006

6. Further, in relation to the offences under Sections - 188, 269,210,272,273,328,336 & 420 read r'vith 34, 149,51I of thc IPC, this Court gave detailed findings as to how the said provisions do not attract merely because tobacco products were being sold, transporled,, possessed, etc. This Coufi relying on the decisions of the Apex Courl held that only the COTP Act, 2003 wili apply in relation to oflbnces relating to sale, manufacture and distribution of ' 2022 crltt 6q2

KL,J Ct 1.P. l;o.56 r9 0/ 202.0 & butch tobacco prc Cucts. Thcrefbre, in light of this Cou t."s decision in Mohcl. Janr ecl Ahmcd (Supra). the offences lllege J under the IPC are not r-nad : out against the Petitioners hercin

7. In elation to offences under Sections - 20 (tl),7 (3) and 7

(5) this co rrt in Mohd. Jameel Ahmcd tSupri'r ha,l helcl as tbllows:

29. Wit r regard to the of'fences under COTP l.ct, it is relevant to mention the objects and the reasons of the said Acl itself clearly state that the act is nreant to prohibit the adveftisement ol, and tt.r provide lirr' the regulation ol trade and commerce in, and proCuction, supply : nd distribution of, cigarettes and other tobacco productl and for matters connected there.l'jth or incidentil thereto. A reading of the said objects of the said A< t would reveal tl-rat a total ban of tcrbacco productr was not er.rvisaged by the said Acl. The Parliam, :nt merely f-e lt it expedient to con -r'o1 the advertis:ment and sale of tobacco products. A.s lroted earlier ir the order, Section-3 (p) of the COTP Act and thc sch :dule therein defir.re tobacco produc ts.

Pan masala, gutkha and chewing tobacco are includr,d in the definiticn of tobacco products. Section-5 of th,: CO'[P Act dea s rvith prohibition of advertisemerlt of <;igarette and oth:r tobacco products only. No person, ll,ho is engaged in the production, supply or dish'ibrriron of cigarettt s or other products shall advertise th: sarue. Sirnilall y', no person having the control over a uedium can ad,,grtise cigalettes or tobacco products. and no person snall be a parl ofany advertisernent.

KL"I Crl.P. No.5619 of2020 & batch

30. Section-7 of the COTP Act deals with the imposition of restriction on the sale, trade, commerce of tobacco products unless 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 saie of cigarettes or other tobacco products to a person.who is under the age of 18 years are in an area within 100 yards ofany educational institution.

31. A readin of this Act. particularlv Sections-4. 5.

6 and 7 clearly shows that there is no general ban or general prohibition on the manufacture/sale of tobacco roducts. 22 What is harred is merclv the sale of these products to a pcrson. rvho is below the ace of 18 \:ears and in an area within 100 Yards ofan educational institution. The other aspects covered bv Sections-S and 7 of the COTP Act. deal with the advertisemcnt and the lvarning. which is to be contained on a Package. in which the tobacco product is packed. This is a re ulatory mechanism onlv. Therefor e, according to this Court. the above said allcsations of transportation. posscsston.

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 of the COTP Act is concemed, 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 prolits. In view of the said allegation, it is apt to refer to Section-20 (2) of the

A I,.J L,, 1, ,\:) iJ t./,)i ) ))().t: hdtrlt COTP , rct lor better appreciation ol' thc case and to decide t re issue in question, and the satlle is as r nder: "20. Pu rishrnent lor failure to give specilied warning and nicr tine and tar contcnts.- (l)...

(2) An1 person who sells or distributes cigaletres or tobacco products which do not contain either c,r.r the package or on their label, the specitied warning and the nicotine and tar contents shall in thc case of t-rrst cor-rvicti ln be punishable with irnplisonment for a terrr, r.rftich rr ay extend to one year, or rvith fine rvl-r r;h may extend t: one thousand rupees, or with both, rrnd, lbr the srconcl o[ subsetluent conviction, w th imprisor ment lbr a term which may extencl to tvo years and wit r l-rne which may exienci to th ree tiro usa nd rupees. "

33. Th rs Section-20 of CO'I-P Act deal s_. rvith punishn rent lbr failurc to give specified lr,ar-n nl1i1.;rtl nicotine and tar contents. Bul irr tlhc cornplai nts/charge sheets. there is no allqllation against the pctitioners that they rverc carrrjlq_.gn trade o r commerce in contratrand or anI__lother tobacco products lvithout label and slqql:ili,:rl rvarnint on the said products. In vierv of thr) _lianlsr the cont cnts of the complaints/charge shcers 111.1< tlrc insredicnts of Section-20 (2) of the COTP Acl._liveq there is no allcgation that thc seized products:.4o nql conta in labels u,ith statutorv wa rnrng. __fhuq rcgisterj ng the crintcs tbr the said offcncc lgainst the petir !s!!rs is not onh, cont :.1!_!2)

KL,J Crl.P. Mr56tq of202o & bqttlt of COTP r\ct. but also contrarv to thc rrrinciple laid down in Chidurala Shvamsubderl. In vierv of the same, the offence under Section-20 (2) of COTP Act is also liablc to be quashed against the pctitioners. I once again reiterate that I agree with the principle laid dorvn bv the learncd Sinqle Judees of thc Ilish Court of Andhra Prarlcsh in Chidurala Shvanrsuhderl, Sri. Jaganath Entcrprises 2020 (I) ALI'(Cd.) 215 (APHC) and V. Nasesrvara llao 2020 Supreme (AP) 348.

Therefore, in the present batch of the Petitions, there are no allegations which suppofl the ingredients of Section 7 and 20 ofthe COTP Act, 2003.

8. It is relevant to note that in sonle of the cases, the Petitioners were charged under Sections 21 and 22 of the COTP Act, 2003, and the said provisions are extracted below- "21. Punishrnent for srnoking in certain places'{l) Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 4 shal[ be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees. (2) An offence under this section shall be compoundable and shall be tried summarily in accordance with the procedure provided for surnrnary trials in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)."

KI.,J ( LI' |,o'r lr t) :():i),t bel(h li "22. Pu,risltrnent tbr advertiscmclrt of cigarettcs and iobacco products -Whoever cor)travollcs the provision oi: s,)ction 5 slrall, or conviction, bc punishable (a) in thc casc ol first conVictir u, rvrth imprisonrrcnt for a tenn wlrich may cxtend to two yca s ol with fine r.vhich may exteud to one thcrusand rupces or with both, and (b) in tlre case ofsecon(l or sut'scqucut convictir n rvith imprisonrnent for a tenn which may c<tend io fivc year s and with fine which rnay cxtend to five t rousarrd rupces."

9. Act ording to tlris Cloult, the irrglediints o 'Section 21 ol CO f P .Act, 2 00i are not satistleii. l'here is no rLllcga ion agaiust the Pe titioncrs lerein that they wefc smoking tna t)ubiic place.

'fhcrefbre, tl e Petitioners cannot be charged with Section 2l of CO'|P,,\ct,2103.

[0. Fu rher, the ingredients of Section 22 ol-thc C()TP Act, 200i are als,) not attracted. There is nothing to suggest that the Petitioners iir anyway advertised cigarettes and :ther tobacco products whi:h is prohibited under Section 5 o1-tlc CCTTP Act,, 200i. l'he allcgations only pertain to transpc rlittion, sale, possession, llauulacture, storage and do not include advcl'tiserrent

ll.I.-J CrLP No.56l9 of2020 & botch I olsuch products. Thcreforc, thc Petitioners cannot bc charged rvith Section 22 of COTP Act, 2003.

I 1. In vierv of the abovesaid discussion, all these Criminal Petitions except Crl.P. No.7455 of 2021 are allowed quashing thc proceedings in the respective Crimes/Calendar Cases/Sessions Cases in terms ol the common order, dated 05.0'l .2021 passed by this Court in N'lohd. Jameel Ahmed (Supra).

12. However, it is relevant to note that in Crl. P. No.7455 of 2021 , the petitioner - accused was charged with Sections - 270 and 273 of the IPC and Section - 8 (c) read with Section - 20 (b) of the NDPS Act. The allegation against the petitioner in the said case is that he was found in possession of tobacco products and ganja. Therefore, the said Crl.P. No.7455 of 2021 is parlly allowed and Crime No. 148 of 2021 is quashed as far as the of-lences under Sections - 270 and 273 of the IPC are concerned. The Investigating Officer shall proceed with the investigation in relation to the allegations and ol-fence under Section - 8 (c) read with Section - 20 (b) of the NDPS Act.

KI".l ('tl.P. t\',t.ti.t) I)l :t))0 <\: l)ut(lt t (r l-1. A; thc proceedings in the albresaid Crinrinal Petitions arc quashe( against the respective petitioners, ll:e 'cspective Station l-lour c Olllcers/lnvestigating Oftlcers irre he ot)y rlirectcd to retunr the s-'ized propcrty/r,ch ic lcs on propcr idertillc.rtion and vcrillcation ol'ownership under due ackno\\,ledgrnt:nt. In cases u,hcre charg: sheets are already flled the respectrvc ,'etit oncrs are at liberty tc tile appropriatc applications be fore lhe toncelned Magistratc irl rctum ol thc seizcd property'vel-i.:lc and the Magistrate sl all consider the sanie in accordance q,it r Lari I zf . flowever, it is made clear that if the s :ized stock of tobacco procucts or other products are expired, 1hc r;an.rc shall be destroycrl by taking pemrission frorn thc concclned I\lagislrate.

15. I uring the course of hearing, it was lrrought to thc notice {)l tl-rj; Court tl-rat the learr-red Magislratcs l-e :eceiving rcrnand of ar cused and sending them to judiciaL rr)rrau(i fbr the aloresaicl ol'ences witlrout going through thg o1flcr dated 05.07.2021 p.rssed by this Court in Mohd. Jamec ,\hrned. In vierv ol- the s rnre, the Registrar (Judicial) is directcd to circulate a colry ol- this c rcler and a copy of thc said order Llaterl (t.:;.07.202 I to

KL,J Crl.P. No.56l9 qf2020 & batch ll all the Magistrates in the State of 'lelangana lbr perusal and taking neccssary action in the cases relating to the afbresaid oft'ences. As a sequel, rniscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the crin.rinal pctitions shall stand closed.

l0tr'June.2022 K. LAKSTIMAN, J Notc:

Annex a copy of tlre orcler dated 05.07.2021 in Crl.P. No. t 52 o12020 and batch. (B/O.) Mgr