Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 835 (AP)

Satyavarapu Rambabu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-12-18

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2020
ORDER : Lalitha Kanneganti, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 108 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Itchapuram in crime No. 7 of 2020 of Itchapuram Town Police Station, Srikakulam registered for the offences punishable under Sections 270, 272, 273 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Sections 20(2) 22(B) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'COTP Act'). 2. The petitioners before this Court are A1 to A3 in the above crime. 3. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the registration of FIR No. 7 of 2020 charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 108 of 2020 wherein the case of the prosecution is that the Police caught the petitioners while they were travelling by RTC bus with tobacco products worth Rs. 4,940/- which were packed in a cardboard and hand bag. The petitioners have not committed any offence under the above sections and hence, sought to quash the same. 4. Heard Sri R. Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the above Sections under I.P.C. relate to noxious food or drink and tobacco does fall under the definition of 'food'. He further submits that possession, sale, purchase and transport of banned tobacco products will not attract the offences as alleged and it was mentioned nowhere in the charge sheet that samples were taken and sent to analyst laboratory. Until there is a report showing that it is noxious, a crime cannot be registered. Moreover the Police have no power to register the offences under above Sections except the designated officers like Food Safety Officer. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the sections under COTP Act will not be attracted unless there is violation of the said Act. He places reliance on the common order dated 18.12.2019 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the sections under COTP Act will not be attracted unless there is violation of the said Act. He places reliance on the common order dated 18.12.2019 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos. 5421 of 2019 and batch, wherein it was held that tobacco does not fall within the definition of 'food' as specified under Section 3(i)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and therefore, registration of FIR is not permissible. It was also observed by the coordinate Bench that the provisions of the COTP Act can only be pressed into service in limited circumstances i.e. when there is violation of Sections 4 to 7 and 10 of the COTP Act. As such none of the above sections are applicable to the present case. Hence, the petitioners' prayer may be considered. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. In view of the above submissions, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 108 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Itchapuram, Srikakulam are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.