CHOLLETI RAKESH Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.50 of 2021 on the file of Ghatkesar Police Station, Rachakonda District against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and for a consequential direction as to the Police to return the seized property. The petitioners are accused in the above said Crime. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 272 and 273 of IPC and Sections 20 (1) and 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'). Whereas, the petitioners also filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 for return of material, which were seized in the above said crime.

(2.) Heard Sri K.Surender, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant 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 power to register a case in Cr.No.50 of 2021 on the file of Ghatkesar Police Station, Rachakonda District for the offences under Sections 272 and 273 of IPC and Sections and 20(1) and 20(2) of the COTP Act. He would further submit that the allegations against the petitioners are that they are 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 Sections 20 (1) and 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 & 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.