The Andhra Pradesh High Court has categorically held that chewing tobacco and khaini do not fall within the definition of \”food\” under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; consequently, their regulation is governed by the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA) and not by FSSA. This judgment reaffirms prior legal precedent, provides clear guidance for regulatory demarcation between FSSA and COTPA, and constitutes binding authority for subordinate courts under the High Court’s jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRLRC/201/2019 of L.HANUMANTHA RAO Vs STATE OF AP |
| CNR | APHC010054342019 |
| Date of Registration | 26-02-2019 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge (Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Reaffirms and follows Supreme Court & High Court precedent |
| Type of Law | Food Safety, Tobacco Regulation |
| Questions of Law | Whether chewing tobacco and khaini fall under the definition of “food” for the purposes of action under the FSSA? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held, relying on prior judgments, that chewing tobacco and khaini are not “food” within the meaning of Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Therefore, such products cannot be regulated or penalized under the FSSA. The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA) is the specific law governing manufacture, storage, sale, and distribution of tobacco products. Notifications or actions under the FSSA purporting to regulate tobacco products are without jurisdiction. Trade in tobacco is not impermissible in India unless restricted by a specific statutory regime like COTPA. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court cited Godawat Pan Masala Products (Supreme Court) as still holding the field; also cited several AP High Court decisions affirming that FSSA is a general statute regulating “food” while COTPA is a special, specific statute for tobacco and allied products. Emphasized absence of state power to ban tobacco under FSSA. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was penalized by the Joint Collector under FSSA for sale of tobacco/khaini. On appeal, the penalty was reduced by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner contested the penalty’s maintainability, invoking prior judgments holding that chewing tobacco and khaini are not “food” under the FSSA. The High Court set aside the orders, applying Supreme Court and prior AP High Court law. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; may be cited in similar matters nationally |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that tobacco and chewing materials containing tobacco such as khaini do not fall within the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
- Actions against tobacco and its allied products can be taken only under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA), not under FSSA.
- Orders, notifications, or criminal prosecutions under the FSSA in respect of tobacco/khaini are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.
- The decision brings clarity and finality to regulatory demarcation—only COTPA applies to tobacco; FSSA covers only substances that are “food” under Section 3(j).
- Lawyers can use this as binding precedent within Andhra Pradesh for quashing FSSA proceedings relating to tobacco/khaini.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court traced the history of regulatory action against chewing tobacco/khaini under FSSA, noting repeated judicial pronouncements that such action is ultra vires.
- The judgment reiterates the Supreme Court’s position in Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that only the Central Government under Parliamentary law (COTPA) has power to regulate or ban tobacco products for safety/health, not state-level authorities under general food safety legislation.
- Multiple prior orders and judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court were cited, wherein police FIRs and FSSA prosecutions related to tobacco were quashed as the law does not consider tobacco or khaini “food” under Section 3(j) FSSA.
- Detailed reliance was placed on Dwarapudi Sivarama Reddy (2023), which consolidated precedent and clarified the legal regime, including the lack of jurisdiction of Food Safety authorities regarding tobacco.
- The court set aside the orders of both the Adjudicating Officer (Joint Collector) and the Sessions Judge, holding both were unsustainable in law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Cited prior judgments (including order dated 28.06.2018 in multiple Criminal Petitions) that held chewing tobacco and khaini are not “food” under FSSA.
- Argued that proceedings and penalties under FSSA for tobacco products are without legal basis, as only COTPA applies.
- Sought quashing of penalty orders under FSSA.
Respondent (State/Public Prosecutor)
- Relied on Dwarapudi Sivarama Reddy v. Union of India but did not substantially contest the established legal position as per the cited precedents.
- Brought relevant authorities to the Court’s notice.
Factual Background
The petitioner was subjected to a penalty of Rs.75,000 by the Joint Collector cum Adjudicating Officer, Guntur District, under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, regarding sale of chewing tobacco/khaini. This penalty was reduced to Rs.35,000 in appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur. The petitioner contested the penalty in revision before the High Court on the ground that tobacco/khaini is not “food” within the FSSA, citing prior judgments to this effect.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which defines “food”, was the core provision interpreted; the court, following established precedent, held that tobacco/khaini does not fall within this definition.
- The FSSA’s general regulatory power was contrasted with the specific powers under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA), which is the dedicated statute for tobacco regulation.
- The court emphasized the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Godawat Pan Masala and aligned state practice accordingly, holding FSSA does not empower prohibition or penalty regarding tobacco products.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies long-standing Supreme Court and High Court precedents relating to the regulatory demarcation between FSSA and COTPA.