High Court · 2025

2. Mr.P.V.Ram Prasada Rao, Addl. lnspector of Police, SR Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the proceedings in SC NDPS No.273 of 2O22 on the file of the I Addl. Itlletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and quash the same. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in SC NDPS No.273 of 2O22 on the file of the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. This Petition comang on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri DOKKA MOHAN RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2- The Court made the following: ORDER I I ,l: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDE]R CRIMIINIAL PETITION No.13O59 OF 2024. ORDER: This CrimirLal Petition is filed to quash the pr,tcr,redings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.18 & t)4 in S.C.NDPS.Nc'.273 of 2022 pending on the frle of lezrrned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The S.ll. l{egar Police investigated the corrLplarnt which was made or1 0(i,09.2022 stating that a trap was lad on the basis of informaL. on near Vellanki Foods, Madhura Nzrgz,Lr, S.R. Nagar, Hyderab,ld . The police personnel have tz{<r:r. \.arrtage positions ne:rr the area and found that some persons gitthered and there wa,s e-rchange of articies in between one antther. On seeing the police, the persons tried to escape, hou,e ve r, they were apprehendrd ald were found in possession of MDMA Drug. The said pe rsons were identified themselves, wh,) uire now arrayed as A18 end A24. Due procedure was follorvr:d by the police before se:rrching them and thereafter, the M D M.A. drug found in the;r prtssession was seized. It was further fr,ur rd that A18 and A2zl \ e:e procuring drugs from various sor rces and .,-<. r! 2 selling them to customers/consumers. During the course of investigation, it was found that these petitioners were one of the tonsumers' who purchased MDMA drug for the purpose of consumption.

3. The police, having concluded investigation filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections g(C) read with section 22(Cl, 27 of NDpS Act, 1985 (for short the Actl.

4. l,earned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even according to the prosecution case, they were not involved in drug trafficking or peddling, however, they are identifred as consumers on the basis of investigation. He further submits that the petitioners have undergone counseling and other therapy sessions in Asha Hospital as patients. After the petitioners have undergone counseling and the therapy sessions, the Asha Hospital authorities i.e., Consultant Psychiatrists namely K.Chaitanya l,axmi Reddy and Dr.Saldeep Kondepi certified that this petitioners were duly screened for substance of abuse on 03. 1 I.2022 and, 22.12.2022 which yielded negative result. In the said circumstances, this Court under inherent powers can quash the proceedings t. / I/i /1 i against the oetib oners invoking the provisions und e r r:iection 3 64-A of the Act.

5. At the stage of admission, this Court directe<l th= I earned Additional h.tbli,: Prosecutor to get instructions rega:-ding the correctness c'f ttr,: certificate Iiled by the petitioner i ss..red by Asha Hospitaj :n 26.12.2022. On instructions, the learned Additional Pu'hiic Prosecutor would submit that the pr:tir.ioners have undergcnt: therapy sessions ald the contents of the certificate prodr-tced by the petitioners before this Cot:rt are correct

6. Section 6,4 c,l the Act empowers the Centrai Gor.ernment or the State tliovernment to grant immunity to alr, l:)erson who is directl.r o: indirectly privy to rriolation of any cf the penal provisior-rs cf NDPS Act, with a view to o btai air rg his evidence for prosecuting the accused in a case. Section 64 of the Act is sirnilar to Section 306 of Cr.p.C wherr:br. a Court can tender parlon. However it is the state or c entra_l government lhat is competent to grant immunitl, under Section 64 of r.tLe Ac:t. l i 4 7 Section 64-A of the Act was substituted by Act 9 of 2O0l with effect from 02.10.2001 for the purpose of granting immunity to addicts. Section 64-4 of the Act is extracted for the sake of convenience: "64A. Immunit5r from prosecution to addicts volunteering for treatment.-Any addict, who is charged with an offence punishable under section 2T or witt- offences involving small quantit5r of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, who voluntarily seeks to undergo medical treatment for de-addiction from a hospital or an institution maintained or recognised by the Government or a local authority and undergoes such treatment shall not be liable to prosecution under section 27 or under any other section for offences involving smali quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances: Provided that the said immunity from prosecution may be withdrawn if the addict does not undergo the complete treatment for de-addiction.,,

8. Section 64-A of the Act was introduced but there is no mention about the authority, by whom such immunit5r can be granted from prosecution to the addicts volunteering for treatrnent. The t egislature had deemed it fit to introduce the provision under Section 64-A of the Act to grant immunit5r to persons who are addicted to drugs and not in any way involved either with peddling or sale of drugs. In the absence of any specification regarding the authority or the procedure to grant immunity from prosecution to the addicts volunteering , I I I /, 5 treatment, th.is Oourt under the inherent powers cal qr.Lash the proceedings b y granting immunit5r from p ro:;ecution considering r:ht: facts and circumstances in a given ,:ase. In similar circrtmstances, the High Court of Madras in tht case of Sanjio Bhatnatgar u.State, represented by its Intelligence Officer (2016 :;::C Online Mad 33796) and also in tht' case of AnishKumar Lrrandoo v. State of Telangana (:lO:2 1 SCC Online TS2ll9[i invoked the provision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for g:ant- of immunity from prosecution.

9. Since the r:ertificate produced by the petitior: er s reveal that these petitloners have attended psychoSocial ,:o.rnseling and also othe 'r' t-herapy sesslons over a period in Asha Hospital an d. '',,h en it is stated that substance of a:>use on

03.11.2022 an<l'.22.L2.2022 yielded negative result, th:s Court deems it appr,r pri ate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners trr,. granting immunity

10. In the rer; rlt, the proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.NDPS.Nc'.2'73 of 2022 pend;lrtg on the file of le arned I Additional I\tr:tr:c politan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, rrr: hereby quashed 6

11. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand disposed. //TRUE COPY// SO/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, "1. The I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, SR Nagar, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRI DOKKA MOHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Tpk/gh HIGH COTJR]- DATED:1910312025 ( /, eJ o o ORDER CRLP.No.13059 ot 2024 d ., iE SI4 ,"6 o^ \ ( 2:t h,y ?o.1s ? s ?4 r 'r \ ' nurFr -- - -- =:-' ) CRIMINAL IPETITION IS ALLOWED ( )