BORELLI SRINIVAS Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.724 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapally against the petitioners. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in the above said C.C. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 188, 270 and 273 of 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 (for short 'COTP Act').

(2.) Heard Mr. B. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the entire material available on record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Sub-Inspector of Police is not having authority to lodge the present complaint, and the Velgatoor Police Station, is not having power to register a case in Crime No.237 of 2020 for the offences under Sections - 188, 270 and 273 of IPC and Section - 20 (2) of the COTP Act. He would further submit that the allegation against the petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 are running respective Kirana shops and accused No.2 used to purchase the banned tobacco products from accused No.3. Accused No.1 used to purchase tobacco products, such as amber, V1 tobacco, G-one Zatka and Gutka etc. from accused No.2 and consumption of tobacco is injurious to human health. Thus, the accused has committed the aforesaid offences. The learned counsel by referring to the provisions of COTP Act, including 20 (2), would submit that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not attract the ingredients of the aforesaid provisions and, therefore, the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. In support of the same, he has placed reliance on the judgment in Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana (Crl.P. No.3731 of 2018 and batch, decided on 27.08.2018) rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor has tried to distinguish the principle laid down in the said judgment to the facts of the present case.