IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RM. Ramanathan, Managing Director Abirami Mega Mall Pvt. Ltd & Others – Appellants
Versus
State rep.by Dr. V.K. Palani, Teynampet, Chennai & Another – Respondents
Criminal Original Petition Nos. 15850, 15854, 16429, 16441, 17855 & 18843 of 2022
Decided On : 10-07-2023
COTPA - Alleged offence under Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 - Section 5
Fact of the Case:
The complaint alleged that the movie 'Velaiyilla Pattathari' exhibited a scene depicting smoking of a cigarette, which was considered a violation of Section 5 of the COTPA. The petitioners challenged the proceedings initiated by the complainant before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the allegations in the complaint did not constitute an offence under Section 5 of the COTPA. It concluded that the act of advertisement did not fall within the purview of Section 5, as it was not done by persons engaged in the production, supply, or distribution of cigarettes or other tobacco products.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations made in the complaint constituted an offence under Section 5 of the COTPA.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that Section 5 of the COTPA imposes a complete taboo on the advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco products by specific entities. It also highlighted the need to strictly construe penal statutes and not be swayed by emotions or popular beliefs.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the proceedings in S.T.C.No.4004 of 2022 against all the accused persons, as it found the continuation of the criminal proceedings to be an abuse of the court process.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records and quash the complaint in S.T.C.No. 4004 of 2022 against the petitioners/A3, A8, A5, A2, A1 and A4 respectively on the file of the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.)
Common Order:
1. These criminal original petitions have been filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the first respondent in Crl.O.P.Nos.15850, 15854, 16441 & 17855 of 2022 and respondent in Crl.O.P.Nos.16429 & 18843 of 2022 (for brevity, the complainant) before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai-15 in S.T.C.No.4004 of 2022 for an alleged offence under Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter called the COTPA), which is punishable under Section 22 of the COTPA.
2. The complainant filed the private complaint against the petitioners namely A1 to A5 and A8 with the following allegations :
(i) The second respondent in Crl.O.P.Nos.15850, 15854, 16441 & 17855 of 2022 namely Mr.Cyril Alexander approached this Court by filing W.P.No.24355 of 2014 to direct the Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Secretariat, Chennai-9 to prosecute one M/s.Wunderbar Films Private Limited under Section 5 of the COTPA and further direct the Principal Secretary to the Union of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi-1 to take appropriate action against the Chairman, Central Board of Film Certification, Chennai-34 for the dereliction of duty committed in respect of violations of law by the said M/s.Wunderbar Films Private Limited.
(ii) The said writ petition came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 27.10.2021 by issuing certain directions. Pursuant to that, the Committee constituted under the COTPA considered the directions issued by this Court in the said order and found that the accused persons had pasted posters in the nature of advertisement for the move ''Velaiyilla Pattathari'' (for short, the movie) wherein a scene depicting smoking of cigarette was exhibited. The Committee further found that the same would tantamount to violation of Section 5 of the COTPA and authorized lodging of a complaint against the accused persons;
(iii) The private complaint came to be filed by the complainant with the specific allegation that the violation was done by the producer of the movie, the owner and actor of the movie and the proprietors of various theatres where the movie was sought to be released. The further allegation that has been made in the complaint was that as the advertisement had directly or indirectly suggested or promoted the use or consumption of cigarettes and as the actor in the movie was displayed to be smoking cigarettes, it would unnecessarily attract those in the adolescent age, lead to cultivating such a habit and ultimately go against the interest of the younger generation. Accordingly, it was alleged that the accused persons committed an offence under Section 5 of the COTPA, which is punishable under Section 22 of the COTPA.
3. Heard the learned respective counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent.
4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the respective learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. The short issue that arises for consideration in these petitions is as to whether the allegations made in the complaint will constitute an offence under Section 5 of the COTPA.
6. Mr.S.Cyril Alexander, who was impleaded as the second respondent in some of the above criminal original petitions, claims to be the State Convenor of a movement, which fights
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict construction of penal statutes, emphasizing the need to satisfy the requirements of the statute to constitute an offence.
Point of Law : Food Adulteration - Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life –Criminal Proceedings Quashed - Act done by petitioners i.e., transportation of khaini and che....
Court emphasized the necessity of legal compliance regarding tobacco regulations in public places and directed authorities to consider the petitioner's application for serving hookah, enforcing adher....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.