ORDER

These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.719/2015 & 720/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara. The same point is raised in these two cases, and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order.

2. I will narrate the facts in Crl.M.C.

No.8638/2018:

Petitioner challenges Annexure A1 complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent alleging offences punishable under Sections 22(a) and 24(1) of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'Act 2003'). The 2^nd respondent who is a Health Inspector, purporting to be an authorized officer under the Act 2003, entered into the shop of the petitioner and carried out search and seizure of certain advertisement materials pasted inside the shop at its entrance. It is alleged that the advertisements were in violation of the statutory prescriptions of the Act 2003, and the prosecution is initiated against the petitioner.

3. Same is the allegation in Crl.M.C.

No.8657/2018 also. There also Annexure A1 is the complaint. The 2^nd respondent, Health Inspector filed the above complaint. The allegation in Annexure A1 complaint is that the advertisements were in violation of the statutory prescriptions of the Act 2003.

4. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations against the petitioners in these cases are accepted, no offence under the Act 2003 is attracted. Hence these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed.

5. Heard the learned Senior counsel Adv. M.

Ramesh Chander assisted by Adv. V.B. Unniraj, appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The short point raised by the Senior counsel, Adv. M. Ramesh Chander is that the offence alleged is not attracted. The learned Senior counsel takes me through the offences alleged in Annexure A1 complaint in these cases and submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is attracted.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners are to be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

8. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The brief allegation against the petitioners in these cases is the exhibition of illegal advertisement materials for tobacco products and non-exhibition of a statutory warning board in the shop. The offences alleged are under Sections 22(a), 24(1) r/w 5(1)(a) of the Act 2003. I will consider Section 24(1) of the Act 2003.

Section 24 of the Act 2003 is extracted hereunder:

“24. Punishment for sale of cigarettes or any other tobacco products in certain places or to persons below the age of eighteen years.–

(1) Any person who contravenes the provisions of section 6 shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.

(2) All offences under this section shall be compoundable and shall be tried summarily in accordance with the procedure provided for summary trials in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). ”

9. Section 24(1) says that, any person who contravenes the provisions of section 6 shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. Section 6 of the Act

2003 is extracted hereunder:

“6. Prohibition on sale of cigarette or other tobacco products to a person below the age of eighteen years and in particular area.–No person shall sell, offer for sale, or permit sale of, cigarette or any other tobacco product–

(a) to any person who is under eighteen years of age, and (b) in an area within a radius of one hundred yards of any educational institution.”

10. Even if the entire allegations in Annexure A1 produced in these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are accepted in toto, there is no case to the prosecution that the accused sell, offer for sale, or permit sale of cigarette or any other tobacco products to any person who