THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.11374 of 2023 and 439 of 2024

COMMON ORDER :

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.6065 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), arising out of Crime No.231 of 2022 of P.S. Abid Road, registered for the offences under Sections 4 and 20(2) Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'COTP Act').

2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.6065 of 2023, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

3. Heard Mr. A.L.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused No.1 is running a Hookah Parlour in the name and style ‘Chill on Hill Lounge Hookah Parlour’, by taking a premises on rent in the Mall of petitioner-

accused No.4. Accused No.1 is engaged in the sale of banned hookah flavours containing tobacco products illegally, for earning money easily. The petitioner-accused No.5 is working as Manager of the said Hookah Parlour and is alleged to have concealed the activities by accepting commission from accused No.1.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. It is further contended that the petitioner-accused No.4 is a Builder, having constructed many Complexes in and around Hyderabad. His job is to construct building and sell it to parties. In the same way, he has constructed the said Mall and sold it to one Amir Mohammed Haq, who in turn, has given the same to accused No.1 on rental basis. Hence, the petitioner-accused No.4 has nothing to do with the said Mall and its activities. The petitioner-accused No.5 is working as a House Keeping Assistant and he supervises the work done by the Sweepers. He has nothing to do either with accused No.1, who is running Hookah Parlour or with the owner of the premises. It is also contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of offences alleged against them are not made out. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. As seen from the record, it is evident that the petitioner-accused No.4 has sold the premises to one Amir Mohammed Haq, who in turn, has given the same to accused No.1 on rental basis. In support of the same, rental deed is also filed. Except the allegations that the petitioner- accused No.4 is the owner of the Mall and the petitioner-accused No.5 has concealed the activities done by accused No.1 by accepting commission, there are no specific allegations against them as to how they were involved in the business of sale of Hookah/tobacco products. No FSL or expert report was produced by the prosecution to prove that the substance seized is dangerous/ hazardous to public health. There is no other evidence to connect the petitioners herein to the present crime, except their confessional statements made before the Police, which are inadmissible in the eye of law.

8. Apart from that, Section 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. As seen from the complaint and charge sheet, it is evident that the petitioners are neither traders, nor suppliers/ distributors of cigarettes or any other tobacco p