Charges under Sections 272 and 273 IPC quashed for transporting tobacco product not constituting food

HC quashed cognizance order regarding charges under Sections 272 and 273 read with 34 IPC against petitioner for transporting Guthka (tobacco product). Court held that while seizure of Guthka under COPTA provisions required examination during trial, tobacco with additives cannot be treated as food product under Food Safety and Standards Act despite expansive definition. Following precedent in Joshy K.V. case, Court determined tobacco products are specifically to be avoided under regulations and do not constitute food products unless consumed for taste or nourishment. Criminal miscellaneous petition partially allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge of impugned order of cognizance under Sections 272 and 273 of IPC and COPTA.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C challenging the order of cognizance dated 8th July, 2019, related to a case involving possession and transportation of Tobacco (GHUTKA) allegedly unauthorizedly. The petitioner argued that the offenses under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC were not applicable as GHUTKA did not fall under the definition of food item as per the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act). The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order on these grounds.

2. The informant alleged that the petitioner was in possession of GHUTKA without authorization, which was found to contain Tobacco, a prohibited product under the COPTA. The case was registered under Sections 420, 272, and 273 of the IPC, along with Section 20 of COPTA. The petitioner contended that GHUTKA did not qualify as a food item under the FSS Act, and therefore, the charges under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC were not valid. The court had to determine whether GHUTKA could be classified as a food product.

3. The State argued that GHUTKA, being intended for human consumption, fell under the definition of food as per the FSS Act. The State justified the order of cognizance under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC based on the harmful nature of GHUTKA for human consumption and its prohibition under COPTA. The State also mentioned the evasion of tax (GST) as a basis for the charges under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner.

4. The petitioner cited a previous judgment to support the argument that GHUTKA should not be considered a food product. The State countered by asserting that GHUTKA, being a Tobacco product intended for human consumption, met the criteria of a food item under the FSS Act. The court had to evaluate whether GHUTKA, despite being covered by COPTA, could be classified as a food product under the FSS Act.

5. The court referred to the definitions provided in the FSS Act to determine whether GHUTKA qualified as a food item. After analyzing relevant legal provisions and precedents, the court concluded that GHUTKA did not meet the criteria to be considered a food product under the FSS Act. Consequently, the court allowed the petition in part, quashing the order of cognizance under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC against the petitioner.

6. The judgment highlighted the distinction between GHUTKA as a Tobacco product covered by COPTA and its classification as a food item under the FSS Act. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of legal definitions and previous judgments regarding the classification of substances intended for human consumption.

---