MR. IFTHIKAR AHAMED vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58825
CRL.P No. 3750 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010171512026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3750 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. MR. IFTHIKAR AHAMED
S/O SYED ABDUL ALEEM,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.119, 1ST MAIN,
3RD CROSS, AGRAHARA
LAYOUT, CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE CITY - 560 018.
PERMANENT ADDRESS
NO. 103, 3RD CROSS, NRJ LAYOUT,
BANNIMANTAPA MYSURU CITY,
KARNATAKA - 570015.
2.
MR. MURALIDHAR,
S/O J.RAMESH,
R/AT NO.151/2, A.M.TRADING COMPANY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 4TH MAIN,
8TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE - 560 018.
PERMANENT ADDRESS
NO.4771, 4TH CROSS, N.R. MOHALLA,
NEAR SHIVAJI PARK, MYSURU CITY.
3. MR. VISHWANATH PRATHAP SINGH BHIPIN SINGH,
S/O KRIPASHANKAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT YEARS,
R/AT NO.151/2, A.M. TRADING COMPANY,
4TH MAIN 8TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE - 560 018.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58825
CRL.P No. 3750 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010171512026
PERMANENT ADDRESS
NO.52, 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE CITY.
4. MR. ANTHONY @ ANTHONY JOSEPH.S.M.
S/O ANTHONY JOSEPH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.151/2, A.M.TRADING COMPANY,
TH TH
4 MAIN, 8 CROSS, CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE - 560 018.
ND
R/AT NO.303, 2ND CROSS, 2 STAGE,
TH
19 MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR,
MYSURU CITY -570 017.
5. MR. BHARATH.M
S/O VISHWANATH,
AGED 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.151/2, A.M.TRADING COMPANY,
4TH MAIN 8TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE.
PERMANENT ADDRESS
NO.103, 3RD CROSS, NRJ LAYOUT,
KALKERE CROSS, BANGALORE CITY,
KARNATAKA - 570 014.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KARIAPPA N.A,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY - 560 018.
2. POLICE INSPECTOR,
CCB POLICE, W P W,
BANGALORE CITY,
(BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58825
CRL.P No. 3750 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010171512026
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001).
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M V ANOOP KUMAR, ADDL.SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN C.C.NO.4261/2026 ON THE
FILE OF HONBLE 1ST ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF
CRIME NO.23/2024 OF CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE, FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 7, 20(2) OF
COTPA (CIGARETTES AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS ACT,
2003, UNDER SECTION 6 OF POISONS ACT, 1919, UNDER
SECTION 328, 120-B, 284 READ WITH 149 OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE AND UNDER SECTIONS 52, 59, 63 OF FOOD SAFETY AND
STANDARD ACT, 2006 AS) PER ANNEXURE A,B AND C AND TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF SUMMONS
DATED 22-1-2026 AS PER ANNEXURE B AS AN ABUSE OF
PROCESS OF LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Additional SPP for respondents
No. 1 and 2.
2. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C. No.4261/2026 before the Ist Additional Chief Judicial
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58825
CRL.P No. 3750 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010171512026
Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.23/2024
before the Chamarajpet Police Station, Bengaluru, for the
offences under Section 7, 20(2) of Cigarettes and other
Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Section 6 of Poisons Act,
1999 and Section 328, 120-B, 511 and 284 read with
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 52,
59, 63 of Food Safety Act and Standard Act, 2006.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners
would submit that hukka was banned by notification dated
07.02.2024 and petitioner No.1 was till then authorized
dealer of hukka.
4. Petitioners No.2 to 5 are the workers under the
Petition No.1. Since the hukka was banned vide
notification dated 07.02.2024, the petitioner No.1 was
required to return the goods from the manufacturer which
were validly purchased from the manufacturer. To
complete the process, the petitioner No.1 had raised
invoices in the name of the manufacturer on 08.02.2024
itself and was in the process of dispatching the goods
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58825
CRL.P No. 3750 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010171512026
covered under the notification dated 07.02.2024. At that
juncture, on 09.02.2024, the premises of accused No.1
was raided and the materials were seized.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners
would submit that the possession of the goods which were
banned pursuant to the notification dated 07.02.2024
cannot be said in contravention of the aforementioned
provisions of the Act as the petitioner No. 1 was
dispatching the goods. The petitioner no. 1 was required
to return the goods which were banned. Since the
petitioner No.1 was in the process of despatching the
goods and such an act cannot happen overnight and the
seizure of the goods on 09.02.2024 i.e., after publication
of the notification dated 07.02.2024 and further
prosecution is wholly impermissible in law.
6. To substantiate the contention that the
petitioners were despatching the goods, learned Senior
Counsel would place reliance on the debit notes and credit
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58825
CRL.P No. 3750 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010171512026
notes which are part of the charge sheet produced along
with the petition.
7. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that
acting on the said debit notes and credit notes, the goods
were released in favour of petitioner No.1 and now of the
goods have been despatched to the manufacturer.
8. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that
the Magistrate has referred to the credit notes and debit
notes while passing the said order and said order is not
called in question by the respondent/State.
9. Learned Additional SPP does not dispute the
fact that the goods in custody of petitioner No.1 were
purchased under the valid invoice/order from the
manufacturer. The goods were in the warehouse. There is
no denial of the fact that the alleged seizure took place on
09.02.2024 i.e., 2 days after the notification banning
hukka.
10. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the
view that the act of the petitioner No.1 sending the goods
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58825
CRL.P No. 3750 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010171512026
back to the manufacturer under valid invoice cannot be
said to be in contravention of the aforementioned
provisions of the Act. The act of the petitioner No.1 in
returning the banned goods to the manufacturer cannot be
said to be a sale of banned goods.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is
allowed
.
12. The proceedings in C.C. No.4261/2026 before
the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru
arising out of Crime No.23/2024 of Chamarajpet Police
Station, Bengaluru are quashed.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
brn
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48