O R D E R

These criminal original petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in STC No.1494 of 2019, C.C. No.327 of 2019, C.C. No.30 of 2018, STC No.382 of

2018 and STC No.3621 of 2019, pending before the Court below.

2.The respondent has filed complaint against two accused persons for offence under Sections 58, 59(1) and 63 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The case of the respondent is that they conducted an inspection in the shop belonging to A1 and they seized certain tobacco products which is a banned substance in the State of Tamil Nadu. Whatever was seized was sent for analysis and the Analysis Report shows that the substance contains nicotine which is injurious to health and which is also prohibited by the State of Tamil Nadu. In view of the same, the complaint came to be filed before the Court below. The petitioner has been arrayed as A2 in all the complaints. Except in the complaint in STC No.3621 of 2019 were the petitioner has been arrayed as A1 and the seller of the product has been arrayed as A2. The petitioner has been added mainly on the ground that he is the manufacturer of the banned substance. Aggrieved by the same, all these criminal original petitions have been filed before this Court.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side).

4.It is brought to the notice of this Court that the seller of the banned substance had pleaded guilty in all the cases and he has been convicted and sentenced.

5.On going through the materials, it is seen that the substance that was seized by the respondent contained nicotine and the same is apparent from the report of the Food Analyst. Therefore, the only issue that has to be considered is as to whether there is any materials to connect the petitioner with the sale of banned substance in Tamil Nadu or in otherwords, whether the petitioner is directly involved in the sale of the banned substance manufactured by them, in Tamil Nadu.

6.It is seen from records that the respondent was not able to get any information from the seller of the banned substance as to where he procured the same. There was also no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner is based at Bengaluru and in Bengaluru, there is no ban of the tobacco substance. Hence, the manufacture of the tobacco substance by the petitioner at Bengaluru is not illegal. As to how those banned substances came into the possession of the seller in Tamil Nadu, is a vital fact which has to be established before the Court. Without such connecting materials, the petitioner cannot be straight away made as an accused, just because the name of the petitioner is found to be the manufacturer. At the risk of repetition, it must be kept in mind that the manufacturing of the tobacco substance by the petitioner is not a banned product in Bengaluru.

7.This Court had an occasion to deal with a very similar issue in Crl.O.P.No.19829 of 2017 and an order was passed on 19.01.2022. The relevant portions in the order are extracted hereunder:

6. Normally, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the complaint, but at the same time when the materials relied upon by the prosecution, in the considered view of the Court, do not constitute any offence against the person and continuation of the prosecution is a sheer waste of time and futile exercise, this Court can very well exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The charge against the petitioner itself indicates that some tobacco products were seized from A1, who is no way connected with the present petitioner. It is not the case of the prosecution that this product was supplied for sale in Tamil Nadu by the manufacturers. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the sale and manufacture is not totally prohibited in some of the States. Therefore, the question remains whether the prosecution is maintainable if any such product is found in Tamil Nadu without establishing any nexus between the manufacture and sale. As