SHRI. NAZEEB K M @ NAZIB vs THE STATE BY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4236 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)
/ 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. NAZEEB K M @ NAZIB
S/O MUHAMMED SHERIEF.K.S
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RD ND
R/AT NO T01, 3 FLOOR, 2 CROSS,
ST
1 MAIN, MARUTI NAGAR,
MADIVALA BENGALURU CITY,
KARATAKA 560068
PERMANENT ADDRESS
KANNAKKATTU PONTHAAL ROAD,
MUTTOM JUNCTION, ERATTUPETTA,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA 686121
2. SHRI MOIDIN KUNHI @ SHARIF
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O R ABDULLA
RD ND
R/AT NO T01, 3 FLOOR, 2 CROSS,
ST
1 MAIN, MARUTI NAGAR,
MADIVALA BENGALURU CITY,
KARATAKA 560068
PERMANENT ADDRESS
RAVALIKE, KODLAMUGARU POST,
KOLIYOOR, KODLAMUGARU, KASARGODE
KERALA 671323
3. SMT FATHIMA
W/O NAZEEB K M
D/O ABDUL LATHEEF
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RD ND
R/AT NO T01, 3 FLOOR, 2 CROSS,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
ST
1 MAIN, MARUTI NAGAR,
MADIVALA BENGALURU CITY,
KARATAKA 560068
PERMANENT ADDRESS
R/AT 1ST SIGNAL, AJARE HOUSE,
UDYAWAR P O MANJESHWAR
KUNJATHUR, MAJESHWAR,
KASARGODE KERALA 671323
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVAMURTHI A R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY
MADIVALA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001
2. KUMAR
S/OF MUKANAVARA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
PSI MADIWALA P.S.,
MADIWALA,
BENGALURU CITY - 560068
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
COURT OF THE XXXIX ACMM AT BENGALURU IN C.C NO.23673/2024
O/U/S 284, 285, 511 OF IPC 1860 AND SECTION 52, 59, 63 OF
FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT 2006 AND U/S 7, 20(2) OF
CIGARETTES AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS 2003 AND THE
ND
SAME IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF 32 ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The Petitioners are before this court seeking for the
following reliefs:
i. Quash the entire proceedings in the court of the
XXXIX ACMM at Bengaluru in C.C No.23673/2024
o/u/s 284, 285, 511 of IPC 1860 and section 52,
59, 63 of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006
and u/s 7, 20(2) of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco
Products 2003 and the same is pending on the file
nd
of 32 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court
at Bengaluru .
ii. Issue any other order and grant such other and
further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice.
2. Respondent No.2 lodged a suo motu complaint on
15.02.2024, which came to be registered as FIR in
Crime No.42/2024 by Madiwala Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 20(2) of
the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products
(Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of
Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and
Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as
' COTPA, 2003' ), Sections 52, 59 and 63 of the Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred
to as ' FSSA, 2006' ), and Sections 284, 285, 328
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as ' IPC ').
3. Investigation having been completed, a charge sheet
came to be filed on 27.05.2024 for the aforesaid
offences. It is challenging the said proceedings that
the petitioners are before this Court.
4. The substance of the allegations in the suo motu
complaint and the charge sheet is that the
petitioners were carrying on business in the name
and style of 'Smoker's Zone' and were making
available hookah products and e-cigarettes without
obtaining the requisite licence.
5. The relevant portion of the charge sheet, contained
in Column No.17, is extracted hereunder:
ೇನ ಸಂ ಪ
ಾ ಾಂಶ
-
1
ಈ ೋಾ ೋಪಾ ಪತ ದನ ಾ ರವ ೆ ಾ ಾರಂದ
- -
1 2
ಬಂದ !ಾ" #ೕ ೆ ೆ ಾ ರವರು ಬ%ಂ&ಗ(ಾದ ಾ ಂದ
- - -
4 5 & 6
ಾ ರವರು ಮತು
ಪಂಚ ಾದ ಾ ಾ ರವ ೊಂ& ೆ
ಇ ೇ ೆಂಗಳ-ರು ನಗರ ಮ./ಾಳ 0 ೕ1 2ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ&4 ೆ
, 1 ,
ೇರುವ !ಾರು ನಗರ 5ೇ ಮುಖ7ರ ೆ
ಜಂ9: ನ ರುವ
ೊ;ೕಕ= >ೋ: ?ೆಸ ನ ಅಂಗ.ಯ #ೕBೆ ಮತು
ಅಂಗ. !ಾ ೕಕನ
- -
1 3
ಮ5ೆಯ #ೕBೆ ಾC !ಾಡBಾE ಎ ಂದ ಎ ರವ ೆEನ
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
ಆ ೋHಗಳI ಕ5ಾJಟಕ ಾಜ7 ಸ ಾJರ L ೇಧ !ಾ.ರುವ ಹು ಾN
-
ಮತು
ಹು ಾN ೆ ಸಂಬಂO ದ ಸಲಕರ ೆಗಳI ?ಾಗೂ ಇ ಗ ೇQ
ಗಳನುR SಾವT ೇ ಅER ಸುರ9Uಾ ಕ ಮಗಳನುR ೈ ೊಳWೇ ಅಕ ಮ/ಾE
,
ವಶದ ಟು;ೊಂಡು ಅವTಗಳನುR ಾಹಕ ೆ !ಾರಟ !ಾಡುವ ಮೂಲಕ
ಆ?ಾರ ಮತು
ಾವJಜLಕ ಆ ೋಗ7ದ ಅಸುರ9UೆXಂದ ಆ ೋಗ7ದ
#ೕBೆ ದುಷZ ಾಮ ಉಂಟು !ಾಡುವTದು ಕೃತ7ವ ೆಗಲು
,
ಪ ಯ RರುವTದು ಈವ ೆEನ ತL]ೆXಂದ ದೃಢಪ_;ರುತ
ೆ ಆದ4 ಂದ
- -
1 3
ಎ ಂದ ಎ ರ ವ ೆEನ ಆ ೋHಗಳ `ರುದa #ೕಲNಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ
.
ಅನbಯ ೋಾ ೋಪೆಯನುR ?ೊ ರುತ
ೆ
6. The substance of the above allegation is that, on
receiving information, the police conducted a raid at
the shop known as 'Smoker's Zone', situated at
Maruthi Nagar, First Main Road Junction, and at the
residence of the shop owner. It is alleged that
accused Nos.1 to 3 were in illegal possession of
hookah products, related equipment and e-
cigarettes, which were prohibited by the State
Government, without taking fire-safety precautions,
and were selling them to customers, thereby causing
an adverse impact on health and public safety.
7. Sri Shivamurthi A.R., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, makes the following submissions:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
7.1. There is an omnibus allegation against accused
Nos.1 to 3. Accused No.3 is the wife of accused
No.1 and is in no manner concerned with the
business carried on in the name and style of
'Smoker's Zone'.
7.2. Learned counsel submits that the allegations
concerning e-cigarettes and hookah do not
attract the provisions of the FSSA, 2006.
According to him, there is a special and
separate enactment, namely COTPA, 2003,
which governs tobacco products. He places
reliance on Section 52 of the FSSA, 2006, which
is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
52. Penalty for misbranded food.-
(1) Any person who whether by himself or by any other
person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or
sells or distributes or imports any article of food for
human consumption which is misbranded, shall be liable
to a penalty which may extend to three lakh rupees.
(2)The Adjudicating Officer may issue a direction to the
person found guilty of an offence under this section, for
taking corrective action to rectify the mistake or such
article of food shall be destroyed.
7.3. By referring to Section 52, learned counsel
submits that the provision relates to penalty for
misbranded food and that, for invoking the said
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
provision, there must be misbranding of an
article of food.
7.4. Learned counsel refers to Section 59 of the
FSSA, 2006, which is reproduced hereunder for
ready reference:
59. Punishment for unsafe food.-
Any person who, whether by himself or by any other
person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or
sells or distributes or imports any article of food for
human consumption which is unsafe, shall be
punishable,-
(i)where such failure or contravention does not result in
injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to six months and also with fine which may extend to
one lakh rupees;
(ii)where such failure or contravention results in a non-
grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year and also with fine which may extend
to three lakh rupees;
(iii)where such failure or contravention results in a
grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six years and also with fine which may extend
to five lakh rupees;
(iv)where such failure or contravention results in death,
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment
for life and also with fine which shall not be less than ten
lakh rupees.
7.5. Learned counsel submits that Section 59 would
be attracted only where unsafe food is
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
manufactured, stored, sold, distributed or
imported.
7.6. He next refers to Section 63 of the FSSA, 2006,
which is reproduced hereunder for ready
reference:
63. Punishment for carrying out a business
without licence.-
If any person or food business operator (except the
persons exempted from licensing under sub-section (2)
of section 31 of this Act), himself or by any person on
his behalf who is required to obtain licence,
manufactures, sells, stores or distributes or imports any
article of food without licence, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months and also with a fine which may extend to five
lakh rupees.
7.7. By referring to Section 63, learned counsel
submits that the provision would be attracted
only where a person required to obtain a
licence carries on a food business involving the
manufacture, sale, storage, distribution or
import of an article of food without such
licence.
7.8. His further submission is that e-cigarettes and
hookah are not food and, therefore, Section 63
of the FSSA, 2006 would also not be applicable.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
7.9. Learned counsel places reliance on Section
3(1)(j) of the FSSA, 2006, which defines 'food'
and is reproduced hereunder for ready
reference:
3. Definitions. -
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) to (i) xxxx
(j)"food" means any substance, whether processed,
partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for
human consumption and includes primary food, to the
extent defined in clause (ZK) genetically modified or
engineered food or food containing such ingredients,
infant food, packaged drinking water, alcoholic drink,
chewing gum, and any substance, including water used
into the food during its manufacture, preparation or
treatment but does not include any animal feed, live
animals unless they are prepared or processed for
placing on the market for human consumption, plants
prior to harvesting, drugs and medicinal products,
cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic substances:
Provided that the Central Government may declare, by
notification in the Official Gazette, any other article as
food for the purposes of this Act having regards to its
use, nature, substance or quality;
7.10. By referring to Section 3(1)(j), learned counsel
submits that the definition of food refers to
substances intended for human consumption,
including the articles specifically enumerated
therein, subject to the exclusions contained in
the provision.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
7.11. His submission is that the proviso to Section
3(1)(j) makes it clear that the Central
Government may declare any other article as
food by notification in the Official Gazette,
having regard to its use, nature, substance or
quality. According to him, e-cigarettes and
hookah cannot be regarded as food within the
meaning of the said provision.
7.12. Section 3(1)(ZK) of the FSSA, 2006 is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
(ZK) "primary food" means an article of food, being a
produce of agriculture or horticulture or animal
husbandry and dairying or aquaculture in its natural
form, resulting from the growing, raising, cultivation,
picking, harvesting, collection or catching in the hands of
a person other than a farmer or fisherman;
7.13. By referring to clause (ZK) of Section 3(1),
learned counsel submits that primary food
refers to produce of agriculture, horticulture,
animal husbandry, dairying or aquaculture in its
natural form. According to him, e-cigarettes
and hookah cannot be treated as primary food.
7.14. Learned counsel refers to Section 3(1)(n) of the
FSSA, 2006, relating to food business, which is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
(n) "food business" means any undertaking, whether
for profit or not and whether public or private, carrying
out any of the activities related to any stage of
manufacture, processing, packaging, storage,
transportation, distribution of food, import and includes
food services, catering services, sale of food or food
ingredients;
7.15. By referring to Section 3(1)(n), learned counsel
submits that a food business would mean an
undertaking, whether for profit or otherwise
and whether public or private, carrying out
activities relating to any stage of manufacture,
processing, packaging, storage, transportation,
distribution or import of food, including food
services, catering services and sale of food or
food ingredients.
7.16. Learned counsel also relies upon Section
3(1)(o) of the FSSA, 2006, which is reproduced
hereunder for ready reference:
(o) "food business operator" in relation to food
business means a person by whom the business is
carried on or owned and is responsible for ensuring the
compliance of this Act, rules and regulations made
thereunder;
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
7.17. By referring to Section 3(1)(o), learned counsel
submits that a food business operator is a
person by whom the business is carried on or
owned and who is responsible for ensuring
compliance with the Act, rules and regulations
made thereunder.
7.18. Learned counsel submits that e-cigarettes and
hookah not being food under Section 3(1)(j) or
primary food under Section 3(1)(ZK), the
activity in question cannot constitute a food
business under Section 3(1)(n). The petitioners
cannot, therefore, be treated as food business
operators under Section 3(1)(o), and the
proceedings under Sections 52, 59 and 63 of
the FSSA, 2006 cannot be invoked against
them.
7.19. As regards the IPC offences, learned counsel
submits that Sections 284, 285 and 511 have
been invoked against the petitioners. He relies
upon Section 284 of the IPC, which is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
284. Negligent conduct with respect to poisonous
substance.—
Whoever does, with any poisonous substance, any act in
a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human
life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person,
or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with
any poisonous substance in his possession as is
sufficient to guard against any probable danger to
human life from such poisonous substance, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
7.20. By referring to Section 284, learned counsel
submits that the provision requires negligent
conduct with respect to a poisonous substance,
involving an act done so rashly or negligently
as to endanger human life or be likely to cause
hurt or injury, or an omission to take sufficient
precautions against probable danger to human
life. His submission is that e-cigarettes and
hookah cannot, merely by reason of their
nature or use, be treated as poisonous
substances within the meaning of Section 284
IPC.
7.21. Learned counsel next refers to Section 285 of
the IPC, which is reproduced hereunder for
ready reference:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
285. Negligent conduct with respect to fire or
combustible matter.—
Whoever does, with fire or any combustible matter, any
act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life,
or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other
person,
or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with
any fire or any combustible matter in his possession as
is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to
human life from such fire or combustible matter,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees,
or with both.
7.22. By referring to Section 285, learned counsel
submits that the ingredients of the said
provision are not attracted. According to him,
the provision concerns negligent conduct
involving fire or combustible matter in
circumstances endangering human life or likely
to cause hurt or injury. The mere fact that e-
cigarettes or hookah may involve ignition does
not, by itself, establish the ingredients of the
offence.
7.23. Learned counsel also refers to Section 511 of
the IPC, which is reproduced hereunder for
ready reference:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
511. Punishment for attempting to commit
offences punishable with imprisonment for life or
other imprisonment.—
Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by
this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or
to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such
attempt does any act towards the commission of the
offence, shall, where no express provision is made by
this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be
punished with imprisonment of any description provided
for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half
of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-
half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for
that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the
offence, or with both.
Illustrations
(a) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by
breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the box,
that there is no jewel in it. He has done an act towards
the commission of theft, and therefore is guilty under
this section.
(b) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by
thrusting his hand into Z’s pocket. A fails in the attempt
in consequence of Z’s having nothing in his pocket. A is
guilty under this section.
7.24. Learned counsel submits that Section 511,
which deals with attempts to commit offences,
cannot independently sustain the prosecution in
the absence of the ingredients of the underlying
offence. According to him, since the ingredients
of Sections 52, 59 and 63 of the FSSA, 2006
and Sections 284 and 285 of the IPC are not
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
made out, the invocation of Section 511 IPC is
also unsustainable.
7.25. As regards Sections 7 and 20(2) of COTPA,
2003, learned counsel initially contends that the
said provisions are also not attracted. However,
when it is pointed out that hookah tobacco is
expressly included in the Schedule to the Act,
learned counsel fairly submits that the
proceedings under COTPA, 2003 may continue,
subject to his contention that the same can be
maintained only against accused Nos.1 and 2.
7.26. Learned counsel attributes mala fides to the
action of the respondents. He submits that
petitioner No.1, being a law student, had
questioned respondent No.2-Police, pursuant to
which a false case has been registered against
the petitioners, including petitioner No.3, who is
the wife of petitioner No.1.
7.27. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 were merely working at the shop
operating under the name and style of
'Smoker's Zone' and were not its owners.
According to him, the actual owner of the shop
is a different person, against whom no action
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
has been initiated. If any licence was required
to be obtained, the responsibility to obtain the
same, according to learned counsel, would rest
with the owner and not with the petitioners,
who were merely employees.
7.28. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the
offences under the FSSA, 2006 could not have
been prosecuted without a complaint by the
Food Safety Officer and that the police officer
was not competent to initiate prosecution for
the said offences.
7.29. On the above grounds, learned counsel submits
that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
8. Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government
Pleader, opposes the petition and submits as follows:
8.1. At the time of inspection and raid at the subject
premises, no licence was produced before the
authorities. It is in that background that the
prosecution alleges that the business relating to
e-cigarettes and hookah was being carried on
without obtaining the requisite licence.
8.2. Learned HCGP further submits that a mahazar
was drawn and the e-cigarettes and hookah
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
products were seized after following due
process of law. According to her, the articles
seized fall within the purview of COTPA, 2003
and were being sold without the requisite
statutory compliance. The offences under
Sections 7 and 20(2) of COTPA, 2003 are,
therefore, made out and require to be tried.
9. Heard Sri Shivamurthi A.R., learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents
Nos.1 and 2. Perused the papers.
10. The following questions arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the provisions of Sections 52, 59
and 63 of the FSSA, 2006 are attracted to
the allegations concerning e-cigarettes
and hookah products?
(ii) Whether the allegations in the charge
sheet disclose the ingredients of the
offences punishable under Sections 284,
285, 328 and 511 of the IPC?
(iii) Whether the proceedings under Sections 7
and 20(2) of COTPA, 2003 can be quashed
insofar as the petitioners are concerned?
(iv) What Order?
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
11. This court answers the above points as follow:
12. Answer to Point No. (i): Whether the provisions
of Sections 52, 59 and 63 of the FSSA, 2006 are
attracted to the allegations concerning e-
cigarettes and hookah products?
12.1. The first question concerns the applicability of
the FSSA, 2006. The definition of 'food' under
Section 3(1)(j) refers to any substance,
whether processed, partially processed or
unprocessed, which is intended for human
consumption and includes the articles
specifically enumerated therein. The definition
has to be understood in the context of the
object and scheme of the enactment, which is
to regulate food and food-related activities to
ensure the availability of safe and wholesome
food for human consumption.
12.2. The expression 'intended for human
consumption' is significant. The definition does
not extend to every substance or product which
may be used by, introduced into, or consumed
in some manner by a human being. The
substance must be intended for consumption in
the sense contemplated by the Act, namely, as
an article of food. The nature of the substance,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
its intended use, the manner in which it is
ordinarily consumed or used, and the purpose
for which it is made available in the market are
relevant considerations in determining whether
it falls within the statutory definition.
12.3. This distinction is material because several
products are intended to be used by human
beings or introduced into the human body, but
that circumstance does not, by itself, make
them food. Drugs, medicinal products and
cosmetics are expressly excluded by Section
3(1)(j), notwithstanding that they are intended
for use by or application to human beings.
Likewise, the mere fact that a product is
inhaled or smoked does not bring it within the
definition of food. The statutory test is not
merely whether the product is capable of
entering the human body, but whether it is
intended for human consumption as an article
of food.
12.4. The articles alleged to have been seized in the
present case are e-cigarettes, hookah products
and equipment connected with their use. The
fact that these products are used or consumed
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
by human beings does not, by itself, bring them
within the definition of food. Their intended use,
as disclosed in the charge sheet, is inhalation or
smoking and not consumption as food.
12.5. An e-cigarette is an electronic device intended
to facilitate the inhalation of vapour or aerosol.
Similarly, hookah apparatus is used for inhaling
smoke generated by the heating or burning of
the substance placed in the apparatus. Hookah
tobacco, where involved, is intended to be used
by heating or burning and inhaling the resulting
smoke. The apparatus, its accessories and the
substance used therein have to be
distinguished from articles intended to be
consumed as food.
12.6. The allegation that these products may
adversely affect human health does not alter
their character or intended use. A product does
not become an article of food merely because
its use has consequences for human health.
The requirement of the FSSA is that the subject
matter of the activity must first answer the
description of an article of food. Only thereafter
can the provisions relating to misbranding,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
unsafe food or carrying on a food business
without a licence be attracted.
12.7. The proviso to Section 3(1)(j) empowers the
Central Government to declare, by notification
in the Official Gazette, any other article as food,
having regard to its use, nature, substance or
quality. The proviso is an enabling provision by
which the Central Government may extend the
definition to an article which may not otherwise
fall within the ordinary scope of the definition,
having regard to the considerations specified
therein.
12.8. In the present case, no notification issued by
the Central Government under the said proviso,
declaring e-cigarettes, hookah apparatus,
hookah tobacco or the products alleged to have
been seized as articles of food, has been placed
before this Court. In the absence of such
notification, and having regard to the nature
and intended use of the products disclosed in
the charge sheet, the said articles cannot be
brought within the definition of food under
Section 3(1)(j).
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
12.9. The definition of primary food under Section
3(1)(ZK) does not assist the prosecution, as the
articles in question are not agricultural,
horticultural, animal husbandry, dairy or
aquaculture produce in their natural form.
Equally, the definitions of 'food business' and
'food business operator' under Sections 3(1)(n)
and 3(1)(o) cannot be invoked independently of
the requirement that the business must relate
to food.
12.10. The definition of 'food business' is wide enough
to include undertakings carrying out activities
at any stage of manufacture, processing,
packaging, storage, transportation or
distribution of food, as well as food services,
catering services and sale of food or food
ingredients. However, the width of the
definition relates to the nature and stages of
the business activity; it does not dispense with
the essential requirement that the activity must
concern food. Similarly, a food business
operator is a person by whom the food business
is carried on or owned and who is responsible
for ensuring compliance with the Act. The
definition cannot be applied to a person merely
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
because he or she carries on a commercial
activity involving products which are not food.
12.11. Consequently, the allegation that the
petitioners were operating a commercial
establishment and storing or selling products at
the premises cannot, by itself, make them food
business operators under the FSSA, 2006. The
nature of the business and the products dealt
with must first satisfy the statutory definition.
12.12. The above conclusion is also evident upon
examining the individual provisions invoked
against the petitioners. Section 52 deals with
misbranded food. The provision presupposes
the existence of an article of food intended for
human consumption which is misbranded in the
manner contemplated by the Act. The question
of misbranding can arise only after the article in
question is established to be food. In the
present case, the allegation concerns the
possession and sale of e-cigarettes, hookah
products and equipment connected with their
use. No allegation has been made that any
article of food was misbranded. The essential
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
subject matter of Section 52 is, therefore,
absent.
12.13. Section 59 deals with punishment for unsafe
food. The expression 'unsafe food' is defined
under Section 3(1)(zz) of the FSSA, 2006. The
provision concerns an article of food whose
nature, substance or quality is so affected as to
render it injurious to health in the
circumstances enumerated therein. Thus, the
allegation that a product may be harmful to
health cannot, by itself, attract Section 59. The
product must first be an article of food, and it
must then satisfy the statutory description of
unsafe food. In the present case, the
prosecution allegation that the products may
adversely affect health does not overcome the
absence of the foundational requirement that
the products are articles of food.
12.14. Section 63 penalises a person or food business
operator who is required to obtain a licence
under Section 31 but carries on the
manufacture, sale, storage, distribution or
import of an article of food without such
licence. The requirement of a licence under
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
Section 31 arises in relation to a food business.
Where the activity alleged does not concern an
article of food, the question of obtaining a
licence under the FSSA, 2006 does not arise.
The mere allegation that the petitioners did not
possess a licence for operating the
establishment cannot attract Section 63 unless
the prosecution first establishes that the
establishment was carrying on a food business
within the meaning of the Act.
12.15. In the absence of material to bring the articles
seized within the definition of food under
Section 3(1)(j), the activity alleged against the
petitioners cannot be treated as a food business
merely because the products are made
available to customers for use. Consequently,
the foundational ingredients for invoking
Sections 52, 59 and 63 of the FSSA, 2006 are
not disclosed. The proceedings under the said
provisions are, therefore, liable to be quashed.
12.16. Learned counsel has also raised an objection
regarding the competence of the police to
initiate prosecution under the FSSA, 2006.
Sections 41 and 42 of the Act prescribe the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
procedure concerning search, seizure,
investigation and launching of prosecution. In
the present case, the provisions of the FSSA,
2006 are being quashed on the substantive
ground that the articles alleged to have been
dealt with are not food within the meaning of
the Act. It is, therefore, unnecessary to
adjudicate upon the separate procedural
objection concerning the competence of the
complainant or the procedure followed for
launching prosecution. No finding is recorded
on that issue.
13. Answer to Point No. (ii): Whether the
allegations in the charge sheet disclose the
ingredients of the offences punishable under
Sections 284, 285, 328 and 511 of the IPC?
13.1. Insofar as the offences under the IPC are
concerned, Section 284 deals with negligent
conduct with respect to poisonous substances.
The provision is attracted where a person, in
respect of a poisonous substance, does an act
in a manner so rash or negligent as to
endanger human life or to be likely to cause
hurt or injury, or knowingly or negligently omits
to take such precautions against the probable
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
danger to human life from the substance as are
sufficient to guard against such danger.
13.2. The essential ingredients of the provision are,
therefore, the existence of a poisonous
substance; an act or omission attributable to
the accused in relation to that substance; and
the requisite rashness or negligence, resulting
in danger to human life or a likelihood of hurt
or injury. The provision does not penalise the
mere possession, storage or sale of a substance
merely because it may be harmful. The
prosecution must disclose the particular
conduct which is alleged to be rash or negligent
and the manner in which that conduct gives rise
to the danger contemplated by the provision.
13.3. It would not be appropriate to proceed on the
broad premise that nicotine or every substance
used in hookah is incapable of being regarded
as poisonous. The nature and composition of
the particular substance may be relevant in
determining whether it answers that
description. However, the mere presence of
nicotine in a tobacco product does not, by itself,
establish the ingredients of Section 284 IPC.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
Even assuming that the substance in question
is poisonous, the prosecution must still disclose
the particular act or omission attributable to the
accused and the manner in which such conduct
was rash or negligent so as to endanger human
life or be likely to cause hurt or injury.
13.4. The provision cannot be interpreted as though
the manufacture, possession or sale of every
product containing nicotine or tobacco would,
by that very circumstance, constitute an
offence under Section 284 IPC. If such an
interpretation were accepted, the ordinary
manufacture and sale of cigarettes, beedies,
cigars and other tobacco products would also
attract the penal provision merely on account of
the presence of nicotine or other potentially
harmful substances. Such a construction would
extend the scope of Section 284 IPC beyond the
conduct contemplated by the legislature. The
provision does not create a general prohibition
against dealing in products containing
substances potentially harmful to health; it
penalises the particular rash or negligent
conduct, or omission to take sufficient
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
precautions, which gives rise to the danger
specified therein.
13.5. Therefore, the prosecution must establish more
than the presence of nicotine or the possibility
of adverse health consequences from the use of
the product. It must disclose the specific
conduct of the accused which satisfies the
statutory requirements of rashness or
negligence and the requisite danger to human
life or likelihood of hurt or injury. In the
absence of such allegations, the mere
possession or sale of hookah products or e-
cigarettes cannot attract Section 284 IPC.
13.6. In the present case, the charge sheet, as
placed before this Court, makes a general
allegation that the petitioners were in
possession of and selling hookah products and
e-cigarettes without taking adequate fire-safety
measures. It does not identify the particular
poisonous substance in respect of which any
petitioner is alleged to have acted; the specific
act or omission attributable to each petitioner;
or the manner in which such conduct was rash
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
or negligent within the meaning of Section 284
IPC.
13.7. Further, the allegation that the products may
have adverse consequences for the health of
persons using them cannot, without more,
substitute the statutory requirement of rash or
negligent conduct involving a poisonous
substance. The prosecution must disclose a
nexus between the substance, the conduct
attributed to the accused and the danger
contemplated by the provision. Such particulars
are not discernible from the allegations
presently placed before this Court. The
proceedings under Section 284 IPC are,
therefore, unsustainable.
13.8. Section 285 IPC deals with negligent conduct
with respect to fire or combustible matter. It
applies where a person does an act involving
fire or combustible matter in a manner so rash
or negligent as to endanger human life or to be
likely to cause hurt or injury, or knowingly or
negligently omits to take such precautions
against the probable danger from such fire or
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
combustible matter as are sufficient to guard
against such danger.
13.9. The provision is concerned not merely with the
existence of fire or combustible material, but
with the manner in which the accused handles
or deals with it, or the failure to take
precautions against the danger arising
therefrom. The prosecution must, therefore,
disclose the fire or combustible matter involved,
the act or omission attributable to the accused,
and the circumstances which render that
conduct rash or negligent and dangerous to
human life or likely to cause hurt or injury.
13.10. In the present case, the charge sheet alleges
that the petitioners were carrying on the
activity without taking adequate fire-safety
measures. However, the allegation, as
summarised in the material placed before this
Court, does not identify the particular fire or
combustible matter involved, the specific act or
omission attributable to each petitioner, or the
manner in which such conduct endangered
human life or was likely to cause hurt or injury.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
13.11. It is true that the use of a hookah may involve
the use of charcoal or another source of heat or
ignition. If the prosecution had alleged, with
supporting material, that a particular petitioner
handled or stored such combustible material in
a rash or negligent manner, or omitted to take
precautions against a specific and probable fire
hazard, the ingredients of Section 285 IPC
would require examination on that basis.
However, the mere presence of hookah
apparatus or e-cigarettes at the premises,
coupled with a general allegation of absence of
fire-safety measures, does not by itself
establish the offence. The prosecution must
disclose the requisite act or omission and its
connection with the danger contemplated by
the provision.
13.12. In the absence of such particulars in the
allegations presently placed before this Court,
the proceedings under Section 285 IPC cannot
be sustained.
13.13. The charge sheet also invokes Section 328 IPC.
The said provision deals with administering to,
or causing to be taken by, any person, any
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or
unwholesome drug or other thing, with the
intention of causing hurt, or of committing or
facilitating the commission of an offence, or
with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
hurt.
13.14. The scope of Section 328 IPC is not confined to
substances which are technically classified as
poison. The provision also covers a stupefying,
intoxicating or unwholesome drug or other
thing. Consequently, the question whether a
substance falls within the provision cannot be
determined merely by describing it as tobacco,
a hookah preparation or an e-cigarette product.
Its nature and effect may be relevant.
Nevertheless, the nature of the substance alone
is insufficient to attract the provision. The
prosecution must also disclose that the accused
administered or caused the substance to be
taken by another person, accompanied by the
intention or knowledge specified in the section.
13.15. In the present case, the prosecution relies upon
the allegation that the petitioners were in
possession of hookah products and e-cigarettes
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
and were making them available to customers.
Even assuming that a particular substance used
in those products could fall within the
description of a substance contemplated under
Section 328 IPC, the charge sheet must
disclose the act by which the petitioners
administered or caused that substance to be
taken by another person. It must further
disclose circumstances from which the requisite
intention or knowledge can reasonably be
inferred.
13.16. The mere possession or storage of such
products, or their availability for sale at the
premises, does not, without more, establish
that the petitioners administered or caused any
person to take the substance with the intention
or knowledge contemplated by Section 328 IPC.
Equally, the mere assertion that the products
are harmful to health does not automatically
establish that the petitioners possessed the
requisite intention or knowledge to cause hurt.
13.17. The charge sheet does not contain specific
allegations that a particular petitioner supplied
a substance to identified customers, caused
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
them to inhale or consume it, and did so in
circumstances disclosing the requisite intention
or knowledge. It does not identify any person
to whom the substance was administered or
caused to be taken, the act attributable to each
petitioner in that regard, or the circumstances
establishing the requisite mental element. The
essential ingredients of Section 328 IPC are,
therefore, not disclosed, and the proceedings
under that provision are liable to be quashed.
13.18. Section 511 IPC provides punishment for an
attempt to commit an offence punishable with
imprisonment for life or other imprisonment,
where no express provision is made by the IPC
for the punishment of such an attempt. It is not
an independent substantive offence. Its
invocation necessarily presupposes the
identification of the substantive offence alleged
to have been attempted and the existence of an
act towards the commission of that offence.
13.19. The distinction between preparation and
attempt is material. Mere intention or
preparation to commit an offence is not
sufficient. The prosecution must allege an act
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
which goes beyond mere preparation and which
constitutes a step towards the commission of
the particular offence, accompanied by the
requisite intention. The applicability of Section
511 must, therefore, be examined with
reference to the substantive offence allegedly
attempted and the specific act attributed to the
accused.
13.20. In the present case, the charge sheet does not
identify any distinct act constituting an attempt
to commit an offence punishable under the IPC.
The allegation of possession and sale of hookah
products and e-cigarettes, without particulars
disclosing an act beyond preparation towards
the commission of an identified IPC offence, is
insufficient to attract Section 511 IPC. Further,
the charge sheet does not disclose any
independent factual foundation for alleging an
attempt to commit the offences under Sections
284, 285 or 328 IPC. The invocation of Section
511 IPC, on the allegations as presently placed
before this Court, is therefore unsustainable.
13.21. For the foregoing reasons, the allegations in the
charge sheet do not disclose the essential
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
ingredients of the offences punishable under
Sections 284, 285, 328 and 511 IPC.
Continuation of the proceedings against the
petitioners under the said provisions would, in
the circumstances of the present case, amount
to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly,
Point No. (ii) is answered in the affirmative in
favour of the petitioners.
14. Answer to Point No. (iii): Whether the
proceedings under Sections 7 and 20(2) of
COTPA, 2003 can be quashed insofar as the
petitioners are concerned?
14.1. Insofar as the proceedings under COTPA, 2003
are concerned, Section 3(p) defines 'tobacco
products' with reference to the products
specified in the Schedule to the Act. The
Schedule is reproduced hereunder for ready
reference:
THE SCHEDULE
(i) Cigarettes
(ii) Cigars
(iii) Cheroots
(iv) Beedis
(v) Cigarette tobacco, pipe tobacco, and hookah
tobacco
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
(vi) Chewing tobacco
(vii) Snuff
(viii) Pan masala or any chewing material having
tobacco as one of its ingredients (by whatever
name called)
(ix) Gutka
(x) Toothpowder containing tobacco
14.2. A perusal of the Schedule indicates that hookah
tobacco is expressly included within the
definition of tobacco products. However, the
inclusion of hookah tobacco does not result in
every hookah apparatus, accessory or
equipment being treated as a tobacco product.
The statutory definition is product-specific. The
prosecution must, therefore, establish that the
articles in respect of which the alleged
contravention is made are cigarettes or other
tobacco products falling within the definition
under Section 3(p), read with the Schedule.
14.3. The distinction between hookah tobacco and
the apparatus used for smoking it is material. A
hookah, its pipes, bowls, hoses and other
accessories do not become tobacco products
merely because they are used in connection
with hookah tobacco. Similarly, the fact that a
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
commercial establishment provides hookah
facilities does not, by itself, establish that every
article found at the premises is a tobacco
product within the meaning of the Act. The
nature of the particular article and the activity
alleged in relation to it must be examined.
14.4. It is also necessary to distinguish e-cigarettes
from cigarettes and other tobacco products
covered by COTPA, 2003. Electronic cigarettes
are separately defined and regulated under the
Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019.
The said enactment includes electronic nicotine
delivery systems and e-hookah within its
definition of electronic cigarettes and prohibits
specified activities concerning such products.
14.5. However, the present charge sheet does not
invoke offences under the 2019 Act. This Court
is, therefore, not called upon to examine the
petitioners' liability under that enactment. Nor
can an offence under the 2019 Act be read into
the present prosecution merely because e-
cigarettes or e-hookah products are referred to
in the charge sheet. The prosecution under
COTPA, 2003 must independently satisfy the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
ingredients of the provisions invoked
thereunder. The fact that hookah tobacco is
included in the Schedule to COTPA does not
automatically bring electronic devices or every
product associated with their use within that
definition.
14.6. The requirement of displaying the specified
warning on packages of cigarettes and other
tobacco products is not a mere procedural
formality or a technical labelling requirement. It
serves an important public health purpose by
informing consumers, at the point of purchase
and before use, of the health hazards
associated with tobacco consumption. The
warning is intended to ensure that a consumer
is not deprived of material information
concerning the risks of the product and is
enabled to make an informed choice. The
prescribed pictorial warning assumes particular
significance because it communicates the
health consequences in a direct and readily
comprehensible manner, irrespective of the
consumer's level of literacy. The statutory
mandate under COTPA, 2003, therefore, seeks
to prevent the concealment or dilution of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
information concerning the harmful effects of
tobacco products and to discourage their
consumption in the interest of public health.
Compliance with the warning requirement is
consequently an essential statutory obligation,
and its breach cannot be regarded as an
inconsequential irregularity. It is in this context
that the prohibition under Section 7 and the
penal consequences under Section 20 of the Act
must be understood.
14.7. Section 7 of COTPA, 2003 deals with
restrictions on trade and commerce in, and
production, supply and distribution of,
cigarettes and other tobacco products. Sub-
sections (1) and (2) prohibit the production,
supply, distribution or carrying on of trade or
commerce in such products unless every
package bears the specified warning, including
the prescribed pictorial warning, on the
package or its label. Section 7(5) separately
requires the indication of nicotine and tar
contents on the package or label in the
circumstances specified therein.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
14.8. The statutory scheme, therefore, prescribes
requirements concerning both the specified
health warning and the indication of nicotine
and tar contents. These requirements must be
kept distinct while examining the ingredients of
the respective offences. In particular, an
allegation concerning absence of the specified
warning is relevant to Sections 7(1) and 7(2),
whereas the requirement concerning the
indication of nicotine and tar contents is
separately dealt with under Section 7(5).
14.9. In the present case, the prosecution alleges
that tobacco products were seized from the
premises of 'Smoker's Zone' without the
prescribed warnings. The charge sheet further
alleges that accused Nos.1 to 3 were in
possession of the products and were selling
them to customers. The seizure mahazar, the
description of the seized products and the
material relating to their packages are relevant
to determining whether the products fall within
the Schedule and whether the prescribed
warning was absent.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
14.10. The allegation is not confined to the mere
presence of hookah apparatus or e-cigarettes at
the premises. The prosecution also alleges that
tobacco products were being made available
and sold to customers. If the material collected
during investigation discloses that the products
sold or distributed were hookah tobacco or
other tobacco products falling within the
Schedule and that their packages did not bear
the specified warning, the ingredients of the
prohibition under Section 7(2) would prima
facie be attracted.
14.11. The question whether the products actually
seized and dealt with by the petitioners answer
the statutory description, and whether the
prescribed warning was absent, would have to
be determined on the basis of the evidence.
14.12. The petitioners contend that petitioner Nos.1
and 2 were only employees of the
establishment and that the owner alone was
responsible for ensuring compliance with the
statutory requirements. This contention cannot
be accepted as an absolute proposition. Section
7 does not confine the prohibition exclusively to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
the owner of the establishment. Its language
extends to a person who directly or indirectly
produces, supplies or distributes tobacco
products and to a person who carries on trade
or commerce in such products.
14.13. Consequently, the fact that petitioner Nos.1
and 2 were employees does not, by itself,
exclude the possibility of their liability. If the
prosecution material discloses that they actively
participated in the sale, supply or distribution of
tobacco products in contravention of Section 7,
their status as employees would not furnish a
ground to quash the proceedings at the
threshold. At the same time, mere employment
at the establishment, without material
indicating participation in the prohibited
activity, would not be sufficient to fasten
criminal liability upon them.
14.14. The fact that the owner of the establishment
has not been arrayed as an accused also does
not, by itself, absolve persons against whom
specific allegations of participation in the sale,
supply or distribution of the products are made.
The liability of each accused has to be
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
examined with reference to the acts attributed
to that person and the material collected during
investigation.
14.15. In the present case, the charge sheet alleges
that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were in possession
of the tobacco products and were selling them
to customers. At this stage, the Court cannot
undertake an evaluation of the truth or
otherwise of those allegations or determine the
precise extent of their participation. If the
seized articles are established to be tobacco
products within the meaning of the Act and the
allegation regarding absence of the prescribed
warning is supported by the material collected,
the proceedings under Section 7, insofar as
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, cannot
be quashed. The question of their actual
participation and culpability is left open for
determination during trial.
14.16. Insofar as Section 20(2) of COTPA, 2003 is
concerned, the provision prescribes punishment
for a person who sells or distributes cigarettes
or tobacco products which do not contain,
either on the package or on the label, the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
specified warning and the nicotine and tar
contents. The provision must be read along
with the requirements prescribed under Section
7 of the Act. It is intended to ensure that
tobacco products made available for sale or
distribution carry the statutory health warning
and the prescribed particulars concerning
nicotine and tar contents.
14.17. In the present case, the prosecution alleges
that tobacco products were seized from the
premises of 'Smoker's Zone' without the
prescribed warnings and that accused Nos.1 to
3 were in possession of the products and were
selling them to customers. The seizure mahazar
and the description of the seized products,
together with the material concerning their
packages and labels, would be relevant in
determining whether the statutory
requirements were complied with.
14.18. The absence of a specific recital in the charge-
sheet summary that the packages also lacked
the prescribed indication of nicotine and tar
contents cannot, by itself, be treated as
conclusive at this stage, particularly when the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 48 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
prosecution alleges sale or distribution of
tobacco products without the prescribed
statutory particulars. Whether the packages in
fact contained the required warning and the
indication of nicotine and tar contents is a
matter capable of being established through the
seized articles, their labels and the other
evidence produced during trial. The Court, at
the stage of considering a petition for quashing,
cannot undertake a detailed examination of that
evidence or record a finding on the actual
compliance or non-compliance with the
packaging requirements.
14.19. The allegation that the petitioners were selling
or distributing tobacco products without the
prescribed warning, read with the seizure and
other material collected during investigation,
discloses a matter requiring examination at
trial. The question whether the products fall
within the definition of tobacco products under
Section 3(p), read with the Schedule, and
whether the requirements concerning the
specified warning and nicotine and tar contents
were complied with, shall be determined by the
trial Court on the basis of the evidence.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 49 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
Accordingly, the proceedings under Section
20(2) of COTPA, 2003 cannot be quashed at
this stage insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are
concerned.
14.20. Insofar as petitioner No.3 is concerned, the
material placed before this Court does not
disclose any specific act of participation by her
in the business carried on under the name and
style of 'Smoker's Zone'. It is contended that
she was neither working at the shop nor
involved in its activities and that she has been
arrayed as an accused only on account of being
the wife of petitioner No.1.
14.21. Mere relationship with petitioner No.1 cannot,
by itself, fasten criminal liability upon petitioner
No.3. COTPA, 2003 does not impose criminal
liability upon a person merely by reason of his
or her relationship with the owner or employee
of an establishment. The prosecution must
disclose some material indicating that the
person concerned participated in, or was
otherwise responsible for, the activity
prohibited by the relevant provision.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 50 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
14.22. In the present case, no specific allegation or
material has been brought to the notice of this
Court indicating that petitioner No.3 was
involved in the sale, supply or distribution of
tobacco products or that she carried on trade or
commerce in such products. In the absence of
any such material, continuation of the
proceedings against petitioner No.3 under
Sections 7 and 20(2) of COTPA, 2003 would
amount to an abuse of the process of law.
14.23. Accordingly, the proceedings under Sections 7
and 20(2) of COTPA, 2003 are liable to be
quashed insofar as petitioner No.3 is
concerned. However, the proceedings under the
said provisions shall continue insofar as
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned. The
question whether petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have
committed the offences alleged against them
shall be determined by the trial Court on the
basis of the evidence adduced, uninfluenced by
the observations made herein.
15. Answer to Point No. (iv): What Order?
15.1. In view of the answers to the above points this
court passes the following:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 51 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61305
CRL.P No. 4236 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010190572025
ORDER
i. The criminal petition is partly allowed .
ii. The proceedings in C.C. No.23673/2024, insofar
as the offences punishable under Sections 52, 59
and 63 of the Food Safety and Standards Act,
2006 are concerned, are hereby quashed.
iii. The proceedings insofar as the offences
punishable under Sections 284, 285, 328 and 511
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are concerned, are
hereby quashed.
iv. The proceedings for the offence punishable under
Section 7 and Section 20 (2) of COTPA, 2003 shall
continue insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are
concerned.
v. The proceedings for the offence punishable under
Section 7 and Section 20 (2) of COTPA, 2003 are
quashed insofar as petitioner No.3 is concerned.
vi. The observations made herein are confined to
consideration of the allegations and offences
forming the subject matter of the present
proceedings and shall not influence any other
proceedings, if initiated in accordance with law.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29