APHC010710812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13488/2025 Between: 1.KURICHETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA, S/O RAMAIAH ,AGE 53 YEARS,R/O FLAT NO.204,SVC APARTMENT,NEAR GUPTA CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA TOWN KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through the SHO of I town P.S,NTR CommissionarateKrishna District, Rep, by its Public prosecutor.High Court of Andhra PradeshAt Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.D KASI RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.3578 of 2023 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2 Vijayawada City for the offences under Section 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 brevity ‘the COTPA Act’). 2. Heard Sri D.Kasi Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and acceded to, by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the subject matter of this Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in Jaganath Enterprises v. State of A.P1 at paragraph Nos.29, 30 & 31 it is held as under: “29. But as far as the present cases are concerned, this Court by exercising the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. and following the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana v. Bhajan lal7 and the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd., (4 supra), is constrained to hold that all the FIRs/cases that have been registered under the provisions of the IPC, FSS Act and the COTPA Act are quashed, leaving it open to them, if they so desire to pursue the prosecution in respect of the offences under the other enactments, if any. The offences under the NDPS Act can be pursued. The offences under the COTPA Act, can only be launched if the police find that the sections 5, 6 7 and 10 are not complied with. Except on these very limited grounds genuine/legitimate traders cannot be prosecuted. 30. It is hoped that copies of the orders passed by the learned single Judge in Crl.P. No. 3731 of 2018 and batch and this order are widely circulated by the Director General of Police and the Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh through out the state of Andhra Pradesh so that the time and effort of the police are devoted to more serious crimes. Whatever be the impact of tobacco products on the health of an individual or the nation; till the law is amended/modified it has to be followed. As held by many Courts earlier; it may be hard, but it is the law. 31. With the above observations, the criminal petitions are allowed.” 1 2019 SCC OnLine AP 199 3 4. In Tammana Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P2 another learned Single Judge of this Court, following the ratio laid down in Jaganath Enterprises supra, allowed the petition under similar factual circumstances. 5. The controversy raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the principles enunciated in Jaganath Enterprises supra, wherein it was categorically held that all FIRs and prosecutions instituted under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Food Safety and Standards Act, and ‘the COTPA Act’ are liable to be quashed, save and except where the police establish specific non-compliance with Sections 5, 6, 7, and 10 of ‘the COTPA.’ The said precedent underscores that bona fide traders ought not to be subjected to criminal prosecution beyond these narrowly circumscribed statutory grounds. It was further emphasized that indiscriminate prosecutions under these enactments result in diversion of investigative resources from serious offences, and until any legislative amendment is affected, the judicial mandate must be adhered to in its strict form. As the factual matrix of the present case falls squarely within the ambit of these binding authorities, continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law, thereby warranting quashment. 6. In view of the orders passed in Jaganath Enterprises supra and Tammana Srinivasa Rao supra, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. The proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.3578 of 2023 on the file 2 Crl.P.No.8183/2024 dated 15.11.2024 4 of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada City, for the alleged offence under Section 20(2) of ‘the COTPA Act’, stand quashed. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated:31.12.2025 RMD/VTS