APHC010671202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12896/2025 Between:

1.SUNNY KARNANI, S/O.NARAIN R KARNANI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.R/O. 10-50-20/4, RAM RESIDENCY,BEHIND VARUN MOTORS SCOOTER DIVISION,SIRIPURAM JUNCTIO, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public ProsecutorThrough Inspector of Police,III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam CityHigh Court ofAndhra Pradesh atAmaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C.No.2896 of 2025 on the file of the learned IVAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

2. This Court heard at considerable length the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, as also the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and has given anxious and earnest consideration to the rival contentions.

3. LW.7, Inspector of Police received information from LW.1 conducted the raid, prepared the mediator’s report and seized the property and registered the case as FIR No.57/2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 284, 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) and Section 5 read with 8 of the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act, 2019 (for brevity ‘the Act’). LW.8, Sub-Inspector of Police conducted further investigation, collected the evidence and arrested the accused, after completion of the investigation he filed chargesheet.

4. Before proceeding to examine the maintainability of the prosecution, it is necessary to advert to the statutory provisions under which cognizance has been sought to be taken. Section 284 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ which deals with negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substances, provides as follows:

“284. Negligent conductwith respecttopoisonous substance.—

Whoever does, with any poisonous substance, any act in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to causehurt or injurytoanyperson, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any poisonous substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such poisonous substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term whichmayextendtosix months,or withfinewhichmayextendtoone thousandrupees,or withboth.”

5. Section 328 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ which prescribes punishment for the act of causing hurt by means of poison or stupefying substances with a view to committing an offence, reads thus:

“328. Causinghurt bymeansof poison, etc.,withintent tocommitan offence.—

Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison 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 offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also beliable tofine.”

6. Upon a meticulous and anxious examination of the aforementioned statutory provisions in juxtaposition with the specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner in the chargesheet, this Court is of the considered opinion that none of the essential ingredients constitutive of the offences under either Section 284 or Section 328 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ are even remotely attracted to the facts as pleaded and a