JUDGMENT : Ajai Lamba, J. Mr. Naorem Jugin and Mr. Sapam Samarendro Singh have preferred this petition for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Jagiroad Police Station Case No.832/2019 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 20 of COTPA Act, 2003. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are driver and handyman of the bus from which certain recoveries were made. It has been stated that the petitioners have been accused of committing offence under Section 20 of the "Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2003". It has been pleaded that even if the accusations are considered to be true, it cannot be seen that the petitioners have committed the offence. So far Section 379 of IPC is concerned, no such offence has been committed as would be evident from the reading of the FIR. 3. Section 20 of the Act of 2003 reads as follows : "20(1) Any person who produces or manufactures 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 firs conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both, and for the second conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. (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." 4. Learned counsel for the prosecution has not been able to dispute the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the prosecution has not been able to dispute the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the application for bail is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon.