The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. P.V.Ram Prasad, Addl, lnspector of Police, S.R.Nagar Police station, Hyderabad RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.34 in S.C,NDPS No.273 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/accused No.34 in S.C.NDPS,No,273 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Metropoiitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, pendihg disposal of the main Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Baddam Narsimha Reddy ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER r-.. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.l2693 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed to seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.34 in S.C.NDPS.No.273 of 2022 pending on the file of Iearned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The S.R. Nagar Police investigated the complaint which was made on 06.09.2022 stating that a trap was laid on the basis of information near Vellanki Foods, Madhura Nagar, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. The police personnel have taken vantage positions near the area and found that some persons gathered and there was exchange of articles in between one another. On seeing the police, the persons tried to escape, however, they were apprehended and were found in possession of MDMA Orug. The said person identified himself who is now arrayed as A34. Due procedure was followed by the police before searching him and thereafter, the MDMA drug found in his possession was seized. lt was further found that A34 was procuring drugs from various sources and selling them to customers/consumers. During the course of investigation, it was Gc ...rtEL": - *."-.:Jl-!ga' 2 Eto) CtLP.No.t2693-2O25 found that this petitioner was one of the 'consumers' who purchased MDMA drug for the purpose of consumption'

3. The Police, having concluded investigation' filed charge sheet for the offences under sections 8(c) read with section 22(C) and 27 of NDPS Act, 1985 (for short'the Act')' Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit 4. that even according to the prosecution case' he was not involved in drug trafficking or peddling, however, he is identified as one of the consumer on the basis of investigation' The petitioner/accused No.34 did not undergone medical tests to detect the trace of drug' Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to implicate the petitioner' as such, continuance of proceedings against him would be unjust' He further submitted that a co-ordinate bench of this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused No'29 vide orders dated 25.O4.2023in crl.P.No.2902 ot 2023. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief that was granted in favour of accused No'29' Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings againstthe petitioner'

5.LearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorfairlysubmitsthatexcept the confessional statement of the accused Nos'S & 6 that the petitioner/accused No.34 is one among the other customers' no other material has been collected during investigation. That apart' 3 Efo) Ctl.P.No.12693_2025 no medical tests were conducted upon the petitioner/accused No.34 to make out petitioner consuming the contraband.

6. section G4 of the Act empowers the central Government or the state Government to grant immunity to any person who is directly or indirecfly privy to vioration of any of the penat provisions of NDPS Act with a view to obtain his evidence for prosecuting the accused in a case. Section 64 of the Act is similar to section 306 of cr-P.c whereby a court can tender pardon. However it is the state or central government that is competent to grant immunity under Section 64.

7. section 64-4 of the Act was substituted by Act 9 of 2001 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. lmmunity from prosecution to addicts volunteering for treatment--Any addict, who is charged with an offence punishable under section 27 or with offences involving small quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic subsfanceg who voluntarily seeks to undergo medical treatment for de-addiction from a hospital or an institution maintained or recognized by the Government or a rocar authority and undergoes such treatment shall not be tiabre to prosecution under section 27 or under any I J.i 4 ETOJ Crl.P.No.12693_2025 other section for offences involving smatt quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic subsfances; Provided that the said immunity from prosecution may be withdrawn if the addict does not undergo the complete treatment for de-add iction. " B- Section 64-A of the Act was introduced but there is no mention about the authority, by whom such immunity can be granted from prosecution to the addicts volunteering for treatment. The Legislature had deemed it fit to introduce the provision under section 64-4 of the Act to grant immunity to persons who are addicted to drugs and not in any way involved either with peddling or sale of drugs. ln the absence of any specification regarding the authority or the procedure to grant immunity from prosecution to the addicts volunteering treatment, this court under the inherent powers can quash the proceedings by granting immunity from prosecution considering the facts and circumstances in a given case. ln simitar circumstances, the High court of Madras in the case of sarnjiv Bhatnagar v. state, represented by its lntelligence officer (2016 scc online Mad 33796) and also in the case of Anish Kumar Dundoo v. state of Telangana (2021 scc online TS 21gs) invoked the provision under Section 482 of cr.p.c for grant of immunity from prosecution. ;1. . :,',. .. - .:1: -=)7" 5 EIO,I C .P.No.1269i_2O25 Further, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. Ihe Sfafe of Tamilnadu'wherein it was held that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence. That being the position, in the absence of any material evidence, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would be unjustified and abuse of process of Law. lt is also clear by the record that except the statements of co-accused, there is no other material against the petitioner.

9. ln view of the aforesaid discussion, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.34 in SC NDPS No.273 of 2022, on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

10. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3

4. 5. ['snr/sa The I Additional Metropoiitan Sessions Judge:l-ly.derqPag +il bi;i;;-ti;.';iJ ottiier, saroornagar Polict staiion, Hvderabad District' i;;LE; k; ih;FuutiC prosecuior, High court of relansaha' Hvderabad (OUT) bll-" 6c to Sri. Baddam Narsimha Reddy Advocate [oPUc] Two CD Copies \ HIGH COURT DATED:3011012025 1 r'. -=::'.--\q!- c S.-4 -. -,-...... t cL' na;, ? 0 BEr z{il:i i ORDER CRLP.No.12693 ot 2025 e 1J t/, ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ?u ffi,R-