Chewing Tobacco Does Not Qualify as 'Food' Under the FSS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules in Uppara Veerendra Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Background and Context
A large batch of criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. came up before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, collectively seeking the quashing of numerous First Information Reports (FIRs) that had been registered against the respective petitioners. These FIRs alleged violations under multiple statutes, including provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA), the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), the A.P. Excise Act, the A.P. Prohibition Act, and in a subset of cases, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
The underlying allegations across all these FIRs revolved around the manufacture, storage, possession, sale, or transportation of various tobacco-related products — primarily gutka, pan masala, khaini, and other such chewing tobacco items. For organisational clarity, the Court classified the FIRs into three categories:
- Table-I: Cases under IPC, COTPA, and the FSS Act
- Table-II: Cases under IPC, COTPA, FSS Act, A.P. Excise Act, and A.P. Prohibition Act
- Table-III: Cases under IPC, COTPA, FSS Act, and NDPS Act
The sheer volume and variety of FIRs across multiple districts of Andhra Pradesh — from Kurnool, Guntur, and Visakhapatnam to YSR Kadapa, Srikakulam, and SPSR Nellore — illustrated the widespread nature of enforcement action that had been taken against persons allegedly dealing in banned tobacco products.
The Core Legal Question
While the batch of petitions raised multiple legal points, the central controversy that required judicial determination was a focused and singular one:
Does chewing tobacco fall within the definition of 'food' as provided under
Section 3(1)(j)of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006?
If chewing tobacco qualifies as "food" under the FSS Act, then the FIRs registered under the FSS Act could survive. If not, prosecution under that Act would be legally untenable and liable to be quashed.
Prior Coordinate Bench Decisions
The matter was not entirely fresh before the Court. Two earlier coordinate Benches of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had already addressed the identical legal question:
- Crl.P.No.3731 of 2018 and batch (Judgment dated 27.08.2018)
- Crl.P.No.5421 of 2019 and batch — Sri Jaganath Enterprises Eluru v. The State of A.P. (Judgment dated 18.12.2019)
Both these Benches had consistently ruled that chewing tobacco does not constitute 'food' within the meaning of Section 3(1)(j) of the FSS Act and had accordingly quashed the FIRs registered under that Act. The second decision, however, clarified that prosecution under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 10 of the COTPA could be initiated where violations of those provisions were independently established.
The petitioners in the present batch relied upon these prior rulings and contended that since their cases were factually and legally identical, they deserved the same relief.
State's Argument: Chewing Tobacco Should Be Treated as Food
The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petitions insofar as they sought quashing of the FIRs filed under the FSS Act. The State's argument was constructed as follows:
- When a person chews tobacco, nicotine and other harmful substances mix with saliva
- This saliva-tobacco mixture is swallowed by the person chewing it
- Once swallowed, it enters the digestive system
- Therefore, chewing tobacco satisfies the requirement of being a substance "intended for human consumption" under
Section 3(1)(j)of the FSS Act
The Public Prosecutor placed heavy reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohammad Yamin Naeem Mohammad v. State of Maharashtra, which had taken the view that chewing tobacco could be brought within the ambit of food under the FSS Act on the basis of this swallowing argument.
It was further argued that the two earlier coordinate Benches of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had not adequately considered the physiological reality that tobacco juice containing nicotine does enter the human digestive system during the act of chewing, and had therefore arrived at an incorrect conclusion.