THOTA ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1270 of 2020 on the file of L.B.Nagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioner/ accused and for a consequential direction as to the Police to return the seized property. The petitioner is accused in the above said crime. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 272, 273 and 188 of IPC and Section 20(1) 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'). The petitioner also filed I.A.No.2 of 2020 for return of material and Maruthi Zuzuki Eeco vehicle bearing registration No.TS 07FP 1412, which was seized in the above said crime.

(2.) Heard Sri Srinivas Reddy Balakisti, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the entire material available on record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police is not having authority to lodge the present complaint, and the L.B. Nagar Police Station, is not having power to register a case in Crime No.1270 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 272, 273 and 188 of IPC and Section - 20 (1) of the COTP Act. He would further submit that the allegation against the petitioner is that he is selling the tobacco products to the customers illegally in order to gain wrongful profits. Thus, the accused has committed the aforesaid offences. The learned counsel by referring to the provisions of COTP Act, including 20 (1), 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 petitioner 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 & 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.