Point of law: Section 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for selling or distributing the tobacco products which do not contain specified warning and nicotine and tar contents- there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain the labels as well as statutory warning. Therefore, registering the crime for the said offence against the petitioners is also contrary to Section 20(2) of COTP Act.

ORDER :

Kunuru Lakshman, J.

1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 9138 of 2020 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, in FIR No. 178 of 2020 of Station House Officer, Kachiguda Police Station, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, and for a consequential direction to the Police to return the seized property worth Rs. 11,25,000/-.

2. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners are A-1 to A-3 in the above said C.C. No. 9138 of 2020. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 420, 269 and 188 of IPC and Section 20(2) 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').

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Sub-Inspector of Police is not having authority to lodge the present complaint, and the Kachiguda Police Station, is not having power to register a case in FIR No. 178 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 420, 269 and 188 of IPC and Section 20(2) 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 have committed the aforesaid offences. The learned counsel, by referring to the provisions of COTP Act, including 20(2), 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 Telangana Crl.P. No. 3731 of 2018 & batch, decided on 27.08.2018 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.

5. 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 Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, 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 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, 269 and 188 of IPC. Therefore, the said proceedings in C.C. No. 9138 of 2020 against the petitioners herein are contrary to the principle laid down in Chidurala Shyamsubder (Supra) and, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.

6. As far as Section 20(2) of the COTP Act is concerned, as stated above, the allegations against the petitioners are 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 Section 20(2) of the COTP Act for better appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question, and the same is as under :

"20(2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettes tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar contents, shall in the case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one yea