THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1086 of 2025

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.1 to quash the proceedings in FIR No.10 of 2025 on the file of Station House Officer, Talamadugu Police Station, Adilabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No.1 are under Sections 272, 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) (Previously Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code), 7 (1) and 20(2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution)

Act (for short ‘COTP Act’).

02. Heard Sri Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.

03. In Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana, CRL.P.No.3731 of 2018 and batch dated 27.08.2018, a learned Single Judge of the High Court,

by following the guidelines laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, held that the Police are incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 45 and 59(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, 2006, investigating into the offences along with other offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and filing charge sheet is grave illegality, as the Food Officer alone is competent to investigate and to file charge sheet following the Rules laid down under Sections 41 and 42 of FSS Act, whereas, in the present case, the Police have registered the crime for the offences under Sections 272, 275 of BNS, 7 (1) and 20(2) of the COTP Act.

04. In so far as Section 20(2) of the COTP Act is concerned, the allegations against the petitioner are that he is selling the tobacco products to the customers illegally in order to gain wrongful profits. In view of the said allegations' it is apt to refer to Section - 20 (2) of the COTP

Act for better appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question' and the same is as under:

“20(2) Any person who sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label, the specified warning and the nicotine and tar contents shall in the case of first conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees.”

05. Thus, Section 20 of COTP Act deals with punishment for failure to give specified warning and nicotine and tar contents. As stated above, the allegation against the petitioner herein is that they purchase the tobacco products and sell them to customers at higher prices to gain wrongful profits. The petitioner is neither trader, nor supplier/distributor of cigarettes or any other tobacco products. There is no allegation in the charge sheet against the petitioner that he is carrying on the trade or commence in contraband or any other tobacco products without label and specified warning on the said products. In view of the same, the contents of the FIR lacks the ingredients of Section 20(2) of the COTP Act. In the entire FIR, there is no allegation that the seized products do not contain the labels as well as statutory warning. Therefore, registering the crime for the said offences against the petitioner is also contrary to Section - 20 (2) of COTP Act. Thus, the offence under Section - 20 (2) of COTP Act is also liable to be quashed against the petitioner. Since there is no allegation against the petitioner that he is supplying or distributing cigarettes or any other tobacco products, the offence under Section 7 (1) of COTP Act is not made out. Therefore, the said proceedings in FIR No.10 of 2025 against the petitioner are contrary to the principle he