Gutkha transport through Maharashtra is not banned, but Bombay High Court upholds seizure after 50 of 200 bags went missing and orders destruction

Vimal Pan Masala and Vimal Tobacco (“Gutkha”) were seized in Crime No. 166 of 2026 registered at Rajgad Police Station, Pune, for alleged offences under Sections 123, 223, 274 and 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 7(2), 20(2) and 59 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, and Sections 26(2)(i), 26(2)(iv) and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

The Respondent claimed that the goods had been purchased in Karnataka and were being transported to Rajasthan through Maharashtra, without any intention to sell them in Maharashtra.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class directed delivery of interim custody of the seized goods to the Respondent upon execution of an indemnity bond of Rs.80,32,800/-.

The State’s criminal revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, following which the State filed the present writ petition.

The State relied on the fact that invoices showed purchase of 100 bags each of Pan Masala and scented tobacco, whereas the panchnama recorded recovery of only 150 bags, suggesting that some goods had been offloaded in Maharashtra.

1. Whether inter-State transportation of Gutkha through Maharashtra, from Karnataka to Rajasthan, was prohibited under the applicable food-safety prohibition.

2. Whether the discrepancy between the quantity purchased and the quantity seized justified an inference that the prohibited goods had been dumped, stored or intended for sale in Maharashtra.

3. Whether the Respondent was entitled to interim custody of the seized Gutkha upon furnishing an indemnity bond.

The Court applied the prohibition against the manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and supply of Gutkha and tobacco-laced Pan Masala under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, including the powers delegated to the State Food Safety Commissioner under Section 30.

It recognised that inter-State trade and commerce falls within the Union sphere under Entry 42 of List I, while trade within the State and foodstuffs are governed by Entries 26 of List II and 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule.

Relying on Mohammad Yasmin Naeem Mohammad v. State of Maharashtra , Criminal Writ Petition No. 543 of 2020, decided on 9 January 2021, the Court held that inter-State transportation through Maharashtra is not, by itself, prohibited; however, State authorities may seize prohibited goods to prevent their being offloaded or distributed in Maharashtra under the guise of inter-State transport.

The Court further applied Article 21’s protection of life and public health, holding that public-health considerations prevail over the Respondent’s commercial interest.

The Court accepted that genuine transportation of Gutkha from Karnataka to Rajasthan through Maharashtra would not, by itself, attract a prohibition.

However, the Respondent’s own documents showed that 200 bags had been purchased, while the panchnama recorded only 150 bags at the time of seizure.

The Court treated this unexplained shortfall as material evidence supporting the State’s contention that part of the consignment had been offloaded or dumped in Maharashtra for local distribution.

Applying Mohammad Yasmin , the Court held that the State was entitled to act against the consignment where the alleged inter-State route appeared to be a device for introducing prohibited goods into Maharashtra.

The lower courts had failed to properly consider the quantity discrepancy, the State Food Safety Commissioner’s findings regarding the recurring misuse of inter-State transport, and the serious health risks associated with Gutkha consumption.

In balancing interests, the Court held that protection of public health under Article 21 outweighed the Respondent’s commercial claim to the seized goods.

The orders dated 6 June 2026 of the JMFC, Pune, and 30 June 2026 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, were quashed and set aside; the Respondent’s application for interim custody was dismissed.

The State was directed to take effective steps for expeditious destruction of the seized goods.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.