Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(AP) 570
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A. Ramalingeshwar Rao, J
Dasa Shekar v. State of A.P.
Writ Petitions
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Raja Reddy Koneti
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Medical and Health, Government Pleader for Home, Sri. Aditya Singla
Tobacco products cannot be classified as 'food' under the Food Safety Act, despite conflicting lower court interpretations, necessitating a higher bench resolution.
Headnote:(A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 3(1)(j), 42 - Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 - Definition of food - The court considered the applicability of various statutes concerning the seizure of tobacco products, affirming prior judgments that ruled tobacco products cannot be categorized as food under the Food Safety Act, but recognizing conflicting judicial decisions necessitating reference to a larger bench for resolution of the legal issue surrounding classification of tobacco as food. (Paras 21-37)
(B) Legal Separation of Regulatory Fields - Argument that differing statutes concerning tobacco products should not apply interchangeably due to their distinct regulatory intent was emphasized by Counsel, necessitating a nuanced interpretation of the jurisdictional overlap. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the actions of state authorities regarding the seizure of tobacco products, asserting those actions were unlawful. The litigation stems from earlier judgments that established precedents on the matter, yet enforcement actions persisted against petitioners.
Findings of Court:
Indications that tobacco products do not fit under the food category under the Food Safety Act, despite extensive prior legal discourse and conflicting interpretations.
Issues: The primary legal issues involved the classification of tobacco products under applicable food safety regulations and the resulting legal implications.
Ratio Decidendi: Analysis of prior Supreme Court judgments regarding the legal categorization of tobacco products, concluding that a conflict of interpretation exists necessitating resolution.
Result: Matter referred for larger bench consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis of litigation concerning tobacco product seizure (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discussion on the intersection of tobacco laws and food safety (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments outlining the regulatory scope of applicable laws (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. interpretation of tobacco within the definition of food (Para 21 , 28 , 30) |
| 5. referral for larger bench to resolve conflicting interpretations (Para 37) |
1. 'The various petitioners, who approached this Court in the present batch of writ petitions, are aggrieved by the action of the police authorities, and in some cases the authorities under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short 'the Food Safety Act'), seizing tobacco products, either at the stage of transportation or at the stage of storage or sale of these products. Even though, there are slight variations in the reliefs sought by the petitioners, the essential relief sought by all the petitioners is for a direction to the police authorities and the food safety officers not to harass the petitioners in their daily business, dealing with tobacco products, by filing criminal cases against them or seizing their goods.
2. The authorities in the State of Andhra Pradesh, for some time, have been cracking down on the transportation, storage and sale of tobacco products in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The coercive process of the State is being applied to any person, who is found to be transporting, storing or selling tobacco products in the State of Andhra Pradesh, by applying three statutes. Cases are being filed against the persons involved in the trade, either under S.188, S.269, S.270, S.272, S.273 and S.328 of the Penal Code, 1860, or S.26, S.30, S.49(iv), S.57, S.58, S.59 and S.63 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 or S.5(1), S.7(1)(2)(3) and (5),
3. S.22, S.24(1) and S.26 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'the COTP Act').
4. The applicability of these provisions of law and the powers of the police authorities as well as the food safety officers under the above three Acts has been the subject matter of the litigation before various Courts of this country and some parts of this litigation has reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also.
5. These issues had come up, earlier, before a learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 3731 of 2018 and batch, which had been disposed of by a judgment dated 27.08.2018. The learned Single Judge, after an elaborate analysis and discussion of the provisions of law and after an extensive review of the judgments rendered by various High Courts, and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Limited v. Union of India 1, had come to the following conclusions:'
1) Chewing Tobacco, Pan Masala and khaini cannot be treated, under the Food Safety Act, as food, and as such, the provisions of the Food Safety Act would not apply to these tobacco products.
2) Even assuming that the provisions of the Food Safety Act apply to tobacco and tobacco products, the provisions of the said Act can be applied and prosecutions can be launched only by the food Safety officer designated under the Food Safety Act, after he complies with the requirements of S.42(2) and (4) of the Food Safety Act. A police officer cannot initiate or launch any prosecution against any person for offences under the Food Safety Act.
3) Transportation of Pan Masala, Khaini, Chewing tobacco and other tobacco products would not attract S.188, S.269, S.270, S.272, S.273 and S.328 of IPC as they are not food and as such these provisions would not apply.
4) Plain Pan Masala is not a tobacco product and the provisions of COTP Act cannot be applied to plain Pan Masala.
6. The learned Single Judge on the aforesaid findings had quashed the prosecutions, which were at variance with the above observations and findings.
7. Despite the above judgment, the
