Mohammed Ahmed And Another vs. The State Of Telangana And Another

Facts

The petitioners, Mohammed Ahmed and Syed Afzal, are accused in C.C.No.11432 of 2021 before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The proceedings were initiated against them under Sections 336, 273, 272, 328, and 188 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 20(2) of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTP Act). The petitioners sought to quash these proceedings and also prayed for the release of seized stock. The High Court noted that this case was similar to a batch of cases previously decided by it.

Held

The Court allowed the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.11432 of 2021. The Court relied on its previous common order in Criminal Petition No.9062 of 2021 and batch, dated 14.07.2022. In that prior order, the Court had held that the prosecuting agency could not fit its case to any of the provisions invoked under the COTP Act or IPC. The Court observed that there was no specific legislation prohibiting the transportation and sale of gutka, pan masala, etc., and that while the COTP Act regulates tobacco products, it does not envisage a complete ban. The Court stated that without comprehensive legislation, persons dealing with these products cannot be booked under the law. The ratio decidendi is that criminal proceedings under the invoked sections of the IPC and COTP Act are not sustainable when the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence and there is no specific legal bar or comprehensive legislation to ban the products. The Station House Officer/Investigating Officer was directed to return the seized property/vehicle upon proper identification and verification of ownership. The petitioners were granted liberty to file an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate for the return of seized property/vehicle, and the Magistrate was directed to consider it in accordance with law. It was also clarified that if the seized stock was expired, it should be destroyed with the Magistrate's permission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations made in the complaint, when taken at face value, prima facie constitute an offence under Sections 336, 273, 272, 328, and 188 read with 511 of the IPC and Section 20(2) of the COTP Act, warranting the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners? Petitioner's contention: The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the case is squarely covered by a previous common order of this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Petition No.9062 of 2021 and batch, dated 14.07.2022. They submitted that this Court had repeatedly quashed proceedings involving tobacco products on the grounds that the invoked provisions of the IPC and COTP Act were not attracted. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the respondent State or its Public Prosecutor regarding the applicability of the invoked sections or against the petitioner's submissions. The Public Prosecutor appeared, but no arguments are detailed in the judgment.