PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against a person, charged with stocking and selling tobacco products despite its ban across Goa.
Vaman Fallary , accused for the offence under Section 87F of Goa, Daman and Diu Public Health Act submitted through his legal counsel Gaurang Panandikar that if the FIR/Complaint is perused then, there is no allegation that what was allegedly found with the petitioner is covered under the notification dated January 5, 2010.
During the argument before the Division Bench of Justice M S Sonak and Justice M S Jawalkar, the advocate submitted that in particular there is no allegation that any food items as such were found with Fallary . “Even if allegations in the FIR/Complaint are taken at their face value, no offence under Section 87F of the said Act is made out and therefore, would amount to any abuse of the process,” he said.
The 2010 Notification prohibits the consumption, manufacture, sale, distribution, storing or stocking of the food containing tobacco and/or tobacco extracts thereof with any kind of flavour, including cardamom, menthol and/or any kind of sweetener including sugar, glycerine, glucose and/or aromatic herbs and spices including any fruits, silver leaf, saffron, mulethi, submercossa and lime, all or any of them, by whatever name called; in the State.
The petitioner was however found with bags and boxes of the banned products and as such, the Bench observed, there was no merit in the contention of Panandikar that the aforesaid articles are not covered under the notification.
“At this stage, it is not for this Court to delve into the details of analysis of such items. Based on the allegations in the FIR/Complaint however, we cannot agree with Panandikar that such allegations do not make out any case of infringement of the provisions contained in the Chapter IX-A of the said Act or that the offence alleged is not punishable under Section 87F of the said Act,” the court noted.
“Having regard to the limited scope of such proceedings, we feel that no case is made out for quashing of the FIR. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed,” it ordered.
