High Court · 2026

'1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at HYderabad ...RESPONOENT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the ll:cumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may bepleasedtoquashtheSCNo.,l2oof2022,offenceUnderSectionsS(C)r/w Section 2g(b)(iii(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, filed against the Petitioner/ Accused No.09 on the'iile'of the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023 PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High court may U" p6"."0 to stay all further proceedings including the appearance. of the petiiioner/Accused No. 09 in s.b No 120 of 2022 0n the file of the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri K SATISH CHAKRAVARTHY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi AsstPublic Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION N o.'t1319 of 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.9 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him in S.C.NDPS No.120 ot 2022 pending on the file of the learned 1"t Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, (for short 'the learned trial Court') registered for the offences under Sections B(C) read with Section 20(bXiiXB) and Section 27 ot the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ,the Act').

02. Heard Sri Satish Chakrava(hy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for the State-respondent. perused the record.

03. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.02.2022 at 20:30 hours, the Additional lnspector of police, SR Nagar police Station, Hyderabad received credible information that few persons are selling and consuming Hash/Weed oil at flat No.403, Heart Chips building, 4th Floor, BK Guda, SR Nagar, Hyderabad. With the permission of his Superior Officer, he along with staff, rushed to the spot and found seven members. On verification, the accused Nos.4 to 7 were found in possession of Hash/Weed 2 oil in their custody and the accused Nos.8 to 10 were consumlng said Hash oil cigarette. On enquiry, the accused Nos'4 to 7 informed that they procured the said Hashish OilMeed oil of 2 liters from the accused Nos.1 to 3, later on enquiry, the accused Nos.8 to 10 informed that they came to the said premises to buy HashOilfromoneSarathandafterbuyingthesaidHashoil'they started consuming the said Hash oil/weed oil in smoking papers/Rizla rolling papers. Basing on the same, a case in FIR No.77 of 2022 was filed against the petitioner-accused No'9 and other accused. After investigation, the Police laid charge sheet and the same is numbered as S'C'NDPS No'l20 of 2022 on the file of learned trial Court.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-accused No'9 is merely a consumer of the alleged hash/weed oil and was neither in possession of nor involved in the sale or distribution of the said narcotic substance' lt is contended that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of the confessional statements made by certain co- accused and that he was neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the contraband' The petitioner-accused No'9 had undergone rehabilitation at the Government Hospital for Mental Care' Erragadda, Hyderabad' and was subjected to drug testing' 3 wherein he tested negative in a ten-panel drug screening. lt is the specific contention of the learned counsel that this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, may invoke the beneficial provision under Section 644 of the Act, to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.9. lt is further submitted that the proceedings against the accused No.10, who stands on the same footing, were already quashed by this Court vide Order daled2l .09.2023 in Criminal Petition No.263 of 2023. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner_ accused No.9.

05. Learned Assistant public prosecutor for the State_ respondent submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or othenrise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 06' The statutory provision under Section 64 0f the Act, empowers the Central or State Government to grant immunity from prosecution to any person who is directly or indirecfly privy to the commission of any offence under the Act, with a view to obtaining his evidence for the purpose of prosecuting other accused persons. This provision is anarogous to section 306 0f the Code of Criminal procedure, under which a Cou( is 4 empowered to tender pardon to an accomplice; however' under - Section64oftheAct,theauthoritytograntsuchimmunityvests exclusively with the Central or State Government' Further' Section 64-4 of the Act, as substituted by Act 9 of 2001 with effect from 02.10.2001, was introduced with the speciflc object of granting immunity from prosecution to addicts who are found in possessionofsmallquantitiesofnarcoticdrugsorpsychotropic substancesandwhovoluntarilySeekmedicaltreatmentforde- addiction

07. 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 substances' who votuntirily seeks fo undergo medical treatment for de-addiction from a hispitat or an institution maintained or recognised by the Government or a local authority and uhdergoes such treatment shalt not be tiable to prosecution under section 27 or under any other section for offences involving small quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic subslances" Provided that the said imiunity from prosecution may be withdrawn if the addict does not undergo the complete treatment for de-addiction'" OB. Although Section 64 of the Act provides for the grant of immunity from prosecution, it does not specify the authority competent to grant such immunity to addicts who voluntarily seek treatment. Recognizing this gap, the Legislature introduced 5 Section 64-4 of the Act with the specific intent to extend immunity from prosecution to persons who are drug addicts and who are not in any manner involved in the peddling, trafficking, or sale of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. However, in the absence of any express provision prescribing the authority or the procedural mechanism for granting such immunity under Section 64-4 of the Act, 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 similar circumstances, the High Court of Madras in a case of Sanjiv Bhatnagar v. State, represented by is lntelligence Officel and this Court in the case of Anish Kumar Dundoo v. Stafe of Telangana2 invoked the provision under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of immunity from prosecution.

09. Since the petitioner attended counseling in Government Hospital for Mental Care, Hyderabad and that he was yielding negative result, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.9 by granting immunity with a direction to the petitioner-accused No.9 not to involve in any other similar offences. ] 1ZOrO1 SCC Onrine Mad 33796 '202'l scc onLine Ts 2.195 6

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No'9 in S.C.NDPS No.'120 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned 1"t Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad' are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR Note: As oer the Court Order dated oiio2l2o26 made in lA No.1 of 2026in CrlP.No.11319 ot 2023' the order d;ted 03/07/2025 in Crlp No.11319 ot 2023 the name .iili'cdri.t il corrected as "1"t Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judoe at Hvderabad" and also the Nam-e of th-e Case No. is replaced as "SCNDPS No. 120 ot2O22" wherever it is necessarY. This Amended order substitutes the earlier order dispatch ed on 231O112025 issued amended order accordingly' SD/. A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad 2. The lll Addl Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad 3. The Station House bfficer,PS-Sanjeevareddy Nagar,Hyderabad District 4. One CC to SRl. K SATISH CHAKRAVARTHY Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate IOPUC] & Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 06t0212026 t', "' $TATE ttt T{6 * D* ltr*'.,'.\..\ ORDER CRLP.No.11319 ot 2023 CRLP IS ALLOWED lilIo 2- TC 1t