The Bombay High Court has set aside orders directing the release of 115 bags of Vimal Pan Masala and 25 bags of Vimal Tobacco seized in Pune, holding that the lower courts had overlooked material circumstances indicating that the prohibited goods could have been intended for offloading in Maharashtra. The Court directed the State to take effective steps for the expeditious destruction of the seized goods.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar was hearing a petition filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging a June 6, 2026 order of the JMFC, Pune, which had directed interim custody of the seized Gutkha to be handed over to the respondent against an indemnity bond of ₹80,32,800. The State’s revision against that order was subsequently dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.
The respondent contended that the Vimal Pan Masala and Vimal Tobacco were being transported from Karnataka to Rajasthan and were merely passing through Maharashtra. It was argued that transportation of Gutkha through Maharashtra was not prohibited. The High Court agreed with this position to the limited extent that inter-State transportation between Karnataka and Rajasthan, by itself, was not banned.
However, the Court found that the facts of the case raised serious concerns regarding the intended destination of the goods. The respondent’s own documents showed that 100 bags of Vimal Pan Masala and 100 bags of scented chewing tobacco had been purchased, whereas only 150 bags were recovered from the truck during seizure. The Court held that this discrepancy supported the inference that goods could have been dumped in Maharashtra under the guise of inter-State transportation.
Relying on an earlier Division Bench decision in Mohammad Yasmin Naeem Mohammad v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No. 543 of 2020 dt. 9th January 2021], the Court noted that while inter-State transportation itself may be permissible, State authorities are entitled to seize prohibited goods to ensure that they are not offloaded within Maharashtra under the guise of such transportation. The earlier judgment had also recognised the problem of prohibited tobacco products being brought into Maharashtra ostensibly for destinations outside the State and subsequently entering the local market.
The Court also considered the Maharashtra Food Safety Commissioner’s order, which recorded widespread instances of Gutkha and Pan Masala being brought into Maharashtra ostensibly for inter-State transport and subsequently entering local markets. The order noted that between 2012 and 2025, prohibited goods worth approximately ₹449.27 crore had been seized, with 9,454 FIRs registered and 10,241 cases filed before courts.
Emphasising the public-health dimension, Justice Jamdar noted that research and studies referred to in the Food Safety Commissioner’s order showed the extremely harmful effects of Gutkha consumption, including a rise in cases of oral submucous fibrosis. The Court held that public interest and the health of citizens must receive greater importance than the commercial interest of the respondent, observing that Article 21’s protection of life and personal liberty encompasses conditions necessary for a meaningful and healthy existence, including protection against serious threats to public health.
Finding that the JMFC and Additional Sessions Judge had completely overlooked various aspects involved in the matter, the High Court quashed both orders and dismissed the respondent’s application for interim custody. It further directed the State to take effective steps for destruction of the seized Gutkha expeditiously.
