Telangana High Court
Majid Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4177 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.670 of 2018 on the file of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in C.C.No.670 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 6(A), 7 read with Section 20(2), 22, 24(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 'the Act') and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.').
3. Heard Mr. S.Ramchandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that, the complainant/Additional Inspector of Police, Chandrayanagutta Police Station, on relevant date, on receipt of credible information of sales of prohibited tobacco products in the Pan Shops conducted surprises in Rumam Pan Shop, Chandrayangutta X Road, the 2 petitioner/accused No.3 was found in possession of 9 numbers of hookah pots and retailing them by procuring from Prince Novelties, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. Accordingly, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier this Court in the self same Calendar Case had considered the petition for quashment by accused Nos.8 to 11 and passed an order holding that the provision would not cover the allegations against the petitioners, quashed the proceedings against them. The petitioner also stands in the similar position, hence prayed for granting similar relief.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly admit that in the same Calendar Case the petition filed by the other accused has been considered by this Court and quashed the proceedings against them.
7. I have perused the materials on record.
8. As per the charge sheet, the petitioner/accused No.3 was found in possession of hookha pots. Hokha pot is a water pipe, which used for smoking tobacco or other substances i.e. the smoke passes through a water pipe before being inhaled. Thus, basically hookha pot is an instrument used in consumption of tobacco but not per se tobacco product.
3
9. In the alleged offences, Section 5 of the Act deals with prohibition of advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products; Section 6 prohibits sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products to a person under the age of eighteen years and in particular area; whereas Section 7 restricts sale, trade of tobacco unless every packet of cigarette or tobacco product contains specified warning; Section 20(2) prescribes punishment for failure to give specified warning of nicotine and tar contents; Section 22 speaks about punishment for advertisement of cigarettes and tobacco products and Section 24 of the Act is also states that punishment for sale of cigarettes or any other tobacco products in certain places or to persons below the age of eighteen years. Further, Section 420 of I.P.C. deals with cheating and dishonest inducement of delivery of property.
10. The essentials of Sections of Law proposed for prosecution case against the petitioner when juxtaposed with the pleadings of the prosecution in the charge-sheet, it shall be held that no aspect is prima facie meeting the essentials and there is no allegation that the petitioner cheated or dishonestly induced any person for delivering the property. More so, there is no legal provision proposing banning sale of hookah pots. Further, in the charge-sheet it has been asserted that accused Nos.8 to 11 are the kingpins and distributing 4 the prohibited products. However, as noted above, in the Crl.P.Nos.5577 of 2023 and 9605 of 2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had quashed the Calendar Case proceedings against the petitioners therein.
11. That being the position and in the absence of any fact or circumstance making the petitioner liable for prosecution and as the proceedings against the principal offenders in the Calendar Case have been quashed, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in the Calendar Case would be abuse of process of Law. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition deserves positive consideration.
12. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.670 of 2018 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 27.03.2025 lk/svl