<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (9) TMI 1756 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465616</link>
    <description>Mere storage of prohibited tobacco, gutka and pan masala does not satisfy Section 328 IPC, which requires direct administration of a poisonous, stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome substance, or causing it to be taken by another person; storage alone is only preparatory and insufficient. Section 188 IPC likewise requires disobedience of a duly promulgated order that causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance, injury, or danger to human life, health or safety, and storage by itself without further conduct such as manufacture, distribution, sale or movement into consumption did not meet that threshold. The FIR was quashed as to those penal provisions, while proceedings under the food safety law remained unaffected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Jan 2026 08:03:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1756 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465616</link>
      <description>Mere storage of prohibited tobacco, gutka and pan masala does not satisfy Section 328 IPC, which requires direct administration of a poisonous, stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome substance, or causing it to be taken by another person; storage alone is only preparatory and insufficient. Section 188 IPC likewise requires disobedience of a duly promulgated order that causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance, injury, or danger to human life, health or safety, and storage by itself without further conduct such as manufacture, distribution, sale or movement into consumption did not meet that threshold. The FIR was quashed as to those penal provisions, while proceedings under the food safety law remained unaffected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>