⚖️Case Study: Raju Yemulwar & Kushal Patel v. State of Maharashtra
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (2026)
📌 Background
- Crime No.907/2020 registered at Wani Police Station.
- Applicants charged under Sections 188, 269–273, 328 IPC and Sections 130 & 177 Motor Vehicles Act.
- Allegation: possession of contraband “smoking tobacco” during COVID‑19 lockdown.
⚖️ Issues
- Whether smoking tobacco falls under “food” prohibited by FSS Act, 2006 notification dated 15/07/2020.
- Whether prosecution under Section 188 IPC can be initiated via FIR instead of complaint by a public servant.
- Applicability of Section 328 IPC (administering poison/intoxicant).
🗣️ Contentions
- Applicants: Smoking tobacco is not prohibited under FSS Act; Chemical Analyzer’s report confirms it is not “food.” FIR under Section 188 IPC is legally impermissible.
- State: Offences also cover violation of lockdown orders under Disaster Management Act and Epidemic Diseases Act. Trial Court rightly rejected discharge.
📜 Court’s Observations
- Chemical Analyzer’s report (03/11/2020) and Food Safety communication (03/05/2021) confirm seized material is smoking tobacco, not food.
- FSSAI clarification (23/03/2026) states flavoured hookah tobacco is outside FSS Act.
- Section 195 CrPC requires written complaint by public servant for Section 188 IPC; FIR not maintainable.
- Section 328 IPC not attracted as smoking tobacco is neither poison nor stupefying drug.
- Other IPC/MVA offences are non‑cognizable and require Magistrate’s permission.
🧾 Conclusion
- High Court held Trial Court erred in mechanically rejecting discharge.
- Applicants discharged from all offences.
- Order dated 28/01/2026 quashed.
🔑 Key Takeaways
- Smoking tobacco ≠ food under FSS Act.
- Section 188 IPC requires complaint, not FIR.
- Chemical Analyzer’s report is decisive in contraband cases.
- Judicial scrutiny ensures mechanical trial court orders are corrected.
📣 Hashtags
#BombayHighCourt #CriminalLaw #FoodSafety #IPC #CaseStudy #LegalUpdates
📌 Official Copy of judgement 👇