VASANTH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.203 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sec. 17(i) and 24(i) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act read with Sec. 328 of IPC on the file of the 1st respondent Police in respect of the petitioner alone.

(2.) The 2nd respondent has suo moto registered the impugned FIR in Crime No.203 of 2022 against five accused. The case of the prosecution is that on 23/4/2022 when the Sub Inspector attached to Melur Police Station along with Constables were patrolling, they stopped the impugned vehicles. Two persons escaped but secured three accused persons namely Arunkumar, Murali and Velayutham. On searching the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-63-BL-7286 Bolero Pickup van it was found banned tobacco products numbering 100 bags each consisting of 15 small pockets weighing 20 grams each. The 1st respondent arrested all the three accused. On enquiry the arrested informed that the accused who escaped from the scene was one Mr.Ajithkumar and Vasanth (the petitioner herein). On the basis of the confession made by the arrested accused, the respondent has registered the case in impugned FIR against the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner submitted that the petitioner along with the 5th accused had obtained anticipatory bail and was complying with the conditions. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is doing retail business of supplying biscuits and cool drinks to the petty shops and provisional stores throughout Sivagangai District. The petitioner is not doing any business relating to banned tobacco products and no way connected to the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is falsely implicated based on the confession of the co-accused. Though the case was registered on 23/4/2022 the respondent has not collected any material or evidence against the petitioner connecting with the crime even after lapse of more than one year and the same is under investigation till date. The petitioner had raised various grounds and prayed to quash the FIR. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent vehemently opposed to quash the FIR and submitted that the seized materials are banned tobacco and the petitioner had committed the alleged crime.