ORDER: The Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-10 U/s.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the charge sheet in NDPS S.C.No.34/2023 on the file of learned I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 02. Heard Sri P.Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondents No.1 to 3. 03. The contention of the petitioners is that they were prosecuted for the offence under sections 120-B, 272, 273, 353 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), section 58 of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 (for short, “the FSSA, 2006”), U/s.20 (b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and section 192 of M.V.Act. 04. The gravamen of the charge is that on 17.01.2018 at about 07.30 a.m. Inspector of Police, Gudur Rural Circle (L.W-16) intercepted a motor vehicle bearing No.TN 22 CH 4455 proceeding to Nellore from Chennai; found A-2 to A-4 in the cabin of the vehicle; the vehicle was carrying empty egg trays and white plastic bags; Inspector of Police checked the bags and found gutka sachets as well ganja weighing about 7.6 KGs; he recorded the confession statements of A-2 to A-4 and a case was registered vide Cr.No.9/2018 dated 17.01.2018 for the above offence against A-2 to A-4 and others including the petitioners; conducted investigation into the offence; and on conclusion, laid charge sheet before the learned I Addl.District & Sessions Court, Nellore. 05. The contention of the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-10 is that the case was registered for the offence U/secs.272, 273 IPC on the allegation that gutka packets contained tobacco products, as it is against Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: It is not sustainable in law as this Court in several judgments quashed cases holding that the offence U/secs.272, 273 IPC and section 58 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is not applicable to the tobacco products. 06. 06. The other contention of the petitioners is that charge sheet filed for the offence U/s.20 (b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 is also not sustainable in law, as no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioners; and further, police did not follow mandatory provisions under NDPS Act, 1985; therefore, they approached this Court for quashing of charge sheet against the petitioners herein as it amounts to abuse of process. 07. Sri P.Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel would submit that Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30185/2021 and other writ petitions vide common order dated 24.03.2023 held that “Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short, “the COTPA, 2003”) is a special Act dealing with tobacco and tobacco products. Whereas Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is a general Act and seizure of tobacco products by the police under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is bad in law and no coercive action be taken under the said Act” and quashed the criminal proceedings, which were registered by the police under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 for transportation of pan masala containing tobacco products. Therefore, in the case on hand, the prosecution against the petitioners for the offence U/s.58 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is not sustainable in law. 08. The learned Senior Counsel for petitioners would further argued that undisputedly no ganja was seized from the possession of the petitioners in the case and they were roped in the case basing on the alleged confessional statements of other accused (A-2 to A-4); further, the admitted facts in the case would disclose that police did not follow sections 52(A) and 55 of NDPS Act, 1985 at the time of alleged seizure of ganja of 7.6 KGs from the possession of A-2 to A-4; therefore, in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal and another, [ 2016(3) SCC 379 ], the petitioners cannot be prosecutedfor the offence U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and therefore, charge sheet filed against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-10 is not maintainable. 09. Mohan Lal and another, [ 2016(3) SCC 379 ], the petitioners cannot be prosecutedfor the offence U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and therefore, charge sheet filed against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-10 is not maintainable. 09. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State would submit that the questions relating to seizure of gutka pan masala containing tobacco products and ganja made by Inspector of Police vide mediators report dated 17.01.2018. The contents of the said report prima facie show that the seizure was made from the motor vehicle bearing No.TN 22 CH 4455 and A-2 to A-4 were travelling in the cabin of the said vehicle. Thereupon the Inspector of Police recorded the statements of A-2 to A-4 and basing on the confession statement, the petitioners were prosecuted in this case for violating section 58 of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, 272, 273 IPC and also for the offence U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and other offence. Therefore, all the issues involved are question of fact and they shall be decided only after recording evidence during trial by the Special Court, and therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. 10. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that arose for consideration in this Criminal Appeal is as under: “Whether it is a fit case to quash proceedings against the petitioners in NDPS S.C.No.34/2023 on the file of learned I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, as prayed for, invoking section 482 CrPC?” 11. POINT: Admittedly, the petitioners are A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-10 in NDPS S.C.No.34/2023 on the file of learned I Addl.District and Sessions Court, Nellore, for the offence U/s.120-B, 272, 273, 353 r/w.34 IPC, section 58 of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of NDPS Act 1985 and section 192 of M.V.Act. 12. POINT: Admittedly, the petitioners are A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-10 in NDPS S.C.No.34/2023 on the file of learned I Addl.District and Sessions Court, Nellore, for the offence U/s.120-B, 272, 273, 353 r/w.34 IPC, section 58 of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of NDPS Act 1985 and section 192 of M.V.Act. 12. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 to A-7 are close associates; A-2 to A-7 are working under the control of A-1; on 17.01.2018 at about 07.30 a.m. Inspector of Police (L.W-16) on credible information Eicher Van bearing No.TN 22 CH 4455 carrying load of egg trays; at scene of offence located on the road from Chennai to Nellore, he searched the lorry in the presence of mediators (L.Ws-1 and 2); he found A-2 to A-4 were traveling in the cabin of the said lorry; he also searched the empty egg trays, white plastic bags found in the lorry; on verification of the plastic bags, it was found that gutka packets containing tobacco products are available apart from ganja weighing 7.6 KGs; transportation of gutka containing tobacco products was prohibited by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Notification dated 04.01.2017; further, transportation of ganja is an offence under NDPS Act, 1985; therefore, Inspector of Police seized the contraband, arrested A-2 to A-4 and recorded their statements under the cover of mediators report in the presence of mediators; A-2 to A-4 disclosed the names of the petitioners/accused and others; Inspector of Police collected samples from the seized contraband in the presence of mediators and forwarded them to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination; later received analyst report, opining that the samples contain tobacco products and also ganja; therefore, laid charge sheet against the petitioners and other accused for the above offence. 13. There is no dispute that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30185/2021 and other cases, vide common order dated 24.03.2023 considered the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under section 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, prohibiting manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation and sale of gutka/pan masala which contains tobacco and nicotine as ingredients and chewing tobacco products etc., within the meaning of Sections 3(m) and 3(p) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. 14. 14. The Hon’ble Division Bench considering various provisions of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and also Food Safety and Standard Regulations, 2011 and Notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, held that “the Commissioner of Food Safety, Andhra Pradesh is neither authorized nor having any jurisdiction to issue the impugned notification, prohibiting the manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation and sale of gutka/pan masala which contains tobacco and nicotine as ingredients and chewing tobacco products within the meaning of sections 3(m) and 3(p) of the COTPA, 203 in exercise of powers U/s.30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006”, and the declared notifications issued under Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and also Food Safety and Standard Regulations, 2011 as bad in law, and no coercive action can be taken under the provisions of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and also Food Safety and Standard Regulations, 2011 against the said activities. 15. In the light of common order of the Hon’ble Division Bench, as rightly argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, prosecuting the present petitioners for the offence U/secs.272, 273 I.P.C. r/w. section 58 of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 basing on the Notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the provisions of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 for transporting gutka packets containing tobacco is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the charge sheet filed against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-10 for the offence U/sec.272, 273 I.P.C. and section 58 of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 is not maintainable in law and liable to be quashed. 16. When coming to the other contention of the petitioners on NDPS Act, undisputedly in the case on hand, the contraband relating to ganja was not seized from the possession of the petitioners. It is the case of the prosecution that it was seized from Eicher Lorry as stated above. The accused No.2 to 4 were found in the cabin of the lorry. Basing on their alleged confession statement recorded in the presence of the mediators, the petitioners are also prosecuted for the offence U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the samples from the seized contraband of ganja were collected by the Inspector of Police under the cover of mediator’s report. Basing on their alleged confession statement recorded in the presence of the mediators, the petitioners are also prosecuted for the offence U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the samples from the seized contraband of ganja were collected by the Inspector of Police under the cover of mediator’s report. Admittedly the seized contraband was neither produced before the Magistrate, nor samples were collected in the presence of the Magistrate soon after seizure. 17. The contention of the petitioners is that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal and another considered section 52(A)(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and held that “where any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance has been seized and forwarded to the Officer-in-charge to the near Police Station, he shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs and make an application to any Magistrate for the purpose of certifying the correctness of inventory so prepared, or taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of such drugs or substances and certifying such photographs as true or allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn, and violation of the proceedings U/s.52(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985 vitiates the proceedings”. 18. The learned Senior Counsel would argue that section 52(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985 is a mandatory provision and its violation is per se illegal, therefore, would vitiate the trial; and in such case, power U/s.482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceedings. In support of his contention that violation of mandatory provisions under NDPS Act, 1985 would amount to per se illegal and vitiate the trial and the High Courts can quash the proceedings U/s.482 Cr.P.C., relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases: 1. Roy V.D. Vs. State of Kerala, 2000 (8) SCC 590 . 2. Simranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906 and 3. A recent judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.11994/2023 dated 10.09.2024. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Roy V.D. Vs. State of Kerala, 2000 (8) SCC 590 . 2. Simranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906 and 3. A recent judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.11994/2023 dated 10.09.2024. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal and another , considered section 52(A) and 55 of the NDPS Act 1985, on handling and disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and held that “importance of collection of samples would provide primary evidence in NDPS trials”. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that “the Officer conducting seizure shall apply to the Magistrate for drawing of samples, certification etc., without any loss of time and the Officer conducting seizure is also obliged to report the act of seizure and making of the application to the superior officer in writing so that there is a certain amount of accountability. There is equally no doubt that the process of making any such application and resultant sampling, and certification cannot be left to the whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general and section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. When there is no room for prescribing a time frame into the provision, however, application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such application will be expected to attend to the application and do the needful within a reasonable period and without any undue delay or procrastination as it is mandated by sub-section (30) of Section 52-A”. Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that “High Courts will keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates in this regard and through the Magistrates on the agencies that are dealing with the menace of drugs which has taken alarming dimensions in the country partly because of the ineffective and lackadaisical enforcement of the laws and procedures and cavalier manner in which the agencies and at times Magistracy in this country addresses a problem of such serious dimensions”. 20. In the case on hand, undisputedly, the samples were collected by the Investigation Officer at the place of seizure in the presence of the mediators. 20. In the case on hand, undisputedly, the samples were collected by the Investigation Officer at the place of seizure in the presence of the mediators. But he did not follow section 52-A of the NDPS Act, 1985 soon after. No material is forth coming before this Court to substantiate the case of the prosecution that the Inspector of Police had complied with the provisions of section 52-A of the NDPS Act, 1985. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Case in Roy V.D’s case held that “violation of mandatory provisions in the NDPS Act, 1985 per se illegal and shall vitiate the trial and in such cases, powers U/s.482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceedings”. In Simranjit’s case , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “drawing samples at the time of seizure is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohanlal’s case”. 22. In the light of the peculiar facts of the case on hand relating to collection of samples at the time of seizure without taking any steps to comply section 52-A of the NDPS Act, 1985, it amounts to per se illegal. Therefore, it would vitiate the proceedings for the offence U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 against the petitioners. 23. In the light of foregoing discussion, the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-10 for the offence U/secs.272, 273 IPC, section 58 of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 are liable to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court U/s.482 Cr.P.C. However, trial proceedings against the petitioners / A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-10 for the offence U/secs.120-B, 353 r/w.34 I.P.C. and section 192 of M.V. Act, shall go on as per the procedure established by law. Accordingly, the point is answered. 24. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-10 for the offence U/secs.272, 273 IPC, section 58 of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 in NDPS S.C.No.34/2023 on the file of learned I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, are quashed. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-10 for the offence U/secs.272, 273 IPC, section 58 of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 in NDPS S.C.No.34/2023 on the file of learned I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, are quashed. However, case proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-7 and A-10 for the offence U/secs.120-B, 353 r/w.34 I.P.C. and section 192 of M.V. Act, shall be proceed with as per the procedure established by law. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.