SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31477

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
Chandra – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.M.P(MD) No.6133 of 2026 | Crime No.55 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Selva Kumar
For the Respondents:Mr.Thanga Aravindh. B Government Advocate (Crl Side)

Tobacco product quashing petition dismissed as it falls under FSSA, 2006, not COTPA; merits absent at pre-investigation stage.

Headnote:The petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeks to quash FIR in Crime No.55 of 2026 for alleged violation of Section 24(1) of COTPA, 2003, involving seizure of tobacco products from an adult. Court examined applicability of COTPA, 2003 and Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Findings: Product falls under FSSA, 2006 as banned filter tobacco, not COTPA. Issue framed: Whether provision under COTPA applies to seizure from adult. Ratio: Government's submission clarifies product governed by FSSA, 2006; defence on adult age irrelevant at quashing stage; charges to be altered post-investigation. Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Table of Content
1. petition to quash fir under cotpa filed. (Para 1)
2. debate on cotpa vs fssa applicability to tobacco. (Para 2 , 3)
3. petition dismissed; product under fssa. (Para 4)

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the accused person in Crime No.

55 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent seeking to quash the FIR, wherein the petitioner is charged with offence under Section 24(1) of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution)

Act, 2003.

2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the products is said to have seized from a person aged about 38 years. Therefore, the said provision is not applicable.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the product which has been seized from the accused person, is not falling under the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. However, it is clear that filter tobacco is falling under the Food Safety and Standards Act.

4. In view of the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent, it is clear that it is a banned product under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.Therefore, the defence raised by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration at this point of time. It is for the first respondent police to alter the charges after investigation. There are no merits in this petition.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top