APHC010161212026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2443/2026 Between:

1. HABEEB KHAN, S/O TALAT KHAN , AGED 37 OWNER OF DEJAVUREDDY MADE CLOTH SHOP, NEAR HOTEL SEAROCK, DASAPALLA HILLS, VISAKHAPATNAM, R/O FLAT NO.503, SEA SHELL APARTMENT DASAPALLA HILLS, VISAKHAPATNAM AP

530003 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Reb by its public prosecutor, state of Andhra pradesh, through inspector, of police, 111 Town Ps visakhapatnam city High court of Andhra Pradesh at amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. SOURI BABU DUPPATI 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 quashproceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.1in C.C.No.341 of 2026 on the file of the learned IV Additional 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.58/2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 284of 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 and LW.9, Sub- Inspectors of Police conducted further investigation, collected the evidence and arrested the accused, after completion of the investigation LW.9 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 conduct with respect to poisonous 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 cause hurt or injury to any person, 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 which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

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. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an 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 be liable to fine.”

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 offence