Telangana High Court
Mohd Altamash Ayaaz vs The State Of Telangana on 17 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15856 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.C.No.10612 of 2024 on the file of VI-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 7 of the Prohibition of E-Cigarettes Act (for short 'PEC Act').
2. The facts of the case are that respondent No.2-S.I. of Police, Masab Tank Police Station, Hyderabad lodged a report stating that on 17.01.2024 at about 2300 hours, he received a credible information that one person aged about 20 to 23 years is selling and supplying banned electronic Cigarettes to the needy customers at Amrutha Valley Apartment, Flat No.103, Silver Oak Block, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. On such information, he along with his staff immediately rushed to the spot, conducted inspection of the said place in the presence of panchas wherein, on search they found different flavors of E-Cigarettes in the room of petitioner. On enquiry, he voluntarily admitted his guilt and confessed that he is selling 2 and supplying banned E-Cigarettes to the customers. Thereafter the police seized the banned E-Cigarettes under cover of panchanama and lodged report before the police. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case against the accused for the said offence.
3. Heard Sri Mohammed Fayaz, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the said offence. Section 7 of the PEC Act will not attract to the petitioner as E-Cigarettes do not come within the purview of PEC Act. The petitioner is a student and pursuing his studies. He further contended that the petitioner has only booked Rapido on behalf of his friend, but he does not know about the parcel. If criminal proceedings are continued against the petitioner, his future will be damaged. Petitioner has nothing to do with the said crime. Though police filed charge sheet, all the witnesses are official witnesses and Lw.4- is the neighbor of petitioner who gave statement against the petitioner is due to grudge and all other witnesses are 3 interesting witnesses. As such, requested this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A.1.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner stating that petitioner herein was found in possession of banned E-Cigarettes which is a serious offence, the police conducted panchanama in the presence of independent panchas, and that the evidence of independent witnesses is against the petitioner which requires adjudiciation. Therefore, it is not the stage to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.
6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and material on record, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the said offence; that he does not know anything about the said E-Cigarettes and he booked Rapido for his friend which itself shows that he is admitting seizure of E-cigarettes. Further, the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer shows that since two years Lw.4 is consuming E-cigarettes and he used to purchase 5 or 6 vapes of E-cigarettes from the petitioner as he is well known to him. Further, petitioner used to bring E-Cigarettes from Karnataka 4 State. Lw.5 who is working as courier at Porter App stated that on 16.01.2024 at about 1.00 p.m., there was one parcel to be delivered at Hudd Heights MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, and he delivered the said parcel at about 1.30 p.m., to the petitioner, but he do not know the item in the parcel.
7. The statement of the above witnesses shows that petitioner herein used to sell banned E-Cigarettes to Lw.4 and the evidence of Lw.5 shows that he delivered parcel to the petitioner. These allegations require adjudication after full- fledged trial and at this stage, petitioner is not entitled for quashing the proceedings. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :17.04.2025 Rds 5 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15856 OF 2024 DATE : 17.04.2025 Rds