Can’t quash FIR in Namakkal tobacco seizure case: Court

Observing that while dealing with pleas seeking to quash an FIR the court is not expected to conduct a mini investigation more so in cases concerning public welfare and health, the Madras High Court has refused to intervene in a plea seeking to quash the FIR against a person in whose godown in Namakkal district as much as 3,500 kg of banned tobacco products transported from Bengaluru was meant to be stored.

The counsel appearing for the godown owner Thangaraj (a) Thangarasu had contended that neither the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 nor IPC provisions would prevail since it would apply only in cases where an accused person is involved in selling or offering, as food or drink, any article which has been either rendered noxious or unfit.

Also, noting that no overt act has been attributed against the petitioner except for the confession of the co-accused that the Tobacco products were brought to be stored in the godown belonging to him, the counsel contended that in the present case, the product that has been seized cannot be rendered to be noxious as per Section 273 of IPC without there being any report to that effect.

It cannot also be considered as causing somebody to take a poisonous substance as there is no physical act attributed to the petitioner until now that the product that has been seized has not been declared to be poisonous, he argued.

Moreover, though the government has prohibited the manufacture, storage, transport, distribution or sale of Gutkha, Panmasala and other food products containing Tobacco in the interest of public health, the Government Order does not provide for the consequence of the violation of the GO, and therefore the possession of Tobacco products by itself is not an offence, the counsel contended.

However, Justice N Anand Venkatesh on setting aside the submissions, said “The fact that the lorry carried 3,500 kg of the banned product, cannot be said to be for the personal use of this petitioner. A Court should apply the test in all these cases by considering the matters before it, like how a prudent man under such circumstances will think. The presumption, the Court has to make must relate to the common course of natural events and human conduct.”

“The banned products that were taken to the godown belonging to the petitioner was obviously meant for sale, going by the volume that was carried in the vehicle. For the purpose of registering a FIR under Section 273 of IPC, there are materials in this case, and therefore the FIR is sustainable,” the judge said.

Also, noting that there are prima facie materials available to continue the investigation against the petitioner, Justice Anand Venkatesh said “In this case, 3,500 kg of the banned substance has been seized, and therefore this Court must be very slow in interfering with the investigation. This Court should not put spokes in the investigation and should necessarily allow the Namakkal police to complete the investigation.”

“Only on the completion of the investigation, a clear picture will emerge and the purpose for which such a huge consignment was brought in, will stand established,” the judge added.