The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 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 personal appearance of the Petitioner/ Accused No.10 in S.C.NDPS No.273 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble I Addl. Metropolrtan Sessron Judge, Hyderabad, pending disposal of 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 V.N.R. CHAITANYA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETI TION No.l6097of 2021 ORDt]R: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.10 in S.C.NDPS.No.273 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the of-fences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) and 27 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

2. Heard Sri V.N.R.Chaitanya, learned counsel lor the petitioner as well as Sri Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learncd Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I State. ) ) Perusc<l the record i. Learned counsel lbr the petitioner submitted that thc matter is squarely covered by the order dated 22.08.2023 in Criminal Petition No.5,183 of 2023. , t I 2 1S' I Crl.P.No.16097 o[2024

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted thar the issue in the present criminal petition is covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition.

5. In view of the said representation and as the matter is squarely covered by the order in the above criminal petition, this criminal petition is allowed in terms of the above said order, adopting the reasoning contained therein. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.l0 in S.C.NDPS.No.213 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, llyderabad, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Clriminal Pctition shall also stand closed. /ffRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL A T REGISTRAR ASSI rFr \/\--"-- TION OFFICER To, \ 1 The lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally' Hyderabad 2 The Station l-lcuse Officer, S.R. Nagar Police Station. Hyderabad' 3.TwoCCstothePUBL|CPROSECUTOR,HighCourtatHyderabad(OUT)

4.oneCCtoSRl.NAGARAJACHA|TANYAVoNGAVoLUAdvocateIOPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies It(' -lgz .t \ HIGH COURT DATED: 0710112025 ORDER CRLP.No.16097 ot 2024 S-lr*r& !

1. :t S S [Pf, t[ti ,'i: s\ oESt) THIS CR!MINAL PETITION !S ALLOWED @ d$ HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5483 OF 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section !82 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.t by petitioner/accused No.21 to quash the proceedings in S.C. NDPS No.273 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22{c) and 27 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.I State Perused the material available on record.

3. The brief facts, as culled out from the charge sheet, are that accused Nos.S and 6 are addicted to alcohol/weed / drugs and their income is not sulficient to lead their life lavishly. Accused No.S is working in a restaurant in Goa and he started to sell MDMA drug and Ecstasy pills to the needy customers at higher price, meanwhile accused No.6 along with accused No.5 procured the banned Psychotropic Substance Drug i.e., MDMA and Ecstasy Pills from accused No. I to 4, who are the main i 2 GAC, J CrIp 5483_2023 drug suppliers and sold the same to the customers i.e., accused Nos.7 to 34. As per the orders of the customers, in the month of August, accused Nos.S and 6 went to Goa and procured the drugs i.e.,20 grams of MDMA and 50 Ecstasy pills from accused No. i by paying Rs.75,0O0/- and brought the same to Hyderabad. Further, accused Nos.S and 6 sold 10 grams of MDMA drug and 22 Ecstasy pills to needy customers and remaining 10 grams of MDMA drug and 28 Ecstasy pills were kept with them in equal share. Oo O6.09.2022 at about 14:3O hours, as per their plan, accused Nos.S and 6 gathered near Vellanki Foods, Madhura Nagar, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad and were waiting for customers to sell the drug, in the meanwhile, LW- I along with staff of SR Nagar Police Station apprehended accused Nos.5 and 6, seized and banned Psychotropic Substance Drug i.e., MDMA drug and Ecstasy Pills from the possession of accused Nos.S and 6 in the presence of panchas. Therefore, a case uide FIR No.673 of 2O22 on the file of the Station House Officer, S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad was registered against accused Nos.S and 6 ald basing on the confessional statement of the said accused, other accused including the petitioner herein were implicated in the case. 3 CAC, J Crlp-54 83-202 3

4. karned counsel for the petitioner contended that the mandatory provisions under NDPS Act are not followed by the investigating agency; basing on the confession statements of co- accused, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case; the statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act are completely inadmissible statements and they cannot be used against the petitioner. It is further contended that the investigating agency has blatantly violated the Standing Orders 1 / 1989, dated

13.06.1989, which are legislated by Ministry of Finance under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which is mandatory provision for seizure. The Standing Orders 1/ 1989 contemplate as foilows: Drawal of Samples: 2.2. AU the packages/ containers shall be seriaLlg numbered ond, kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psgchotroptc subsfances seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recouery, in dupLicate, in the presence of search ulfness (Panchas) and the person from u.,hose possession the drug is recouered, and a mention to this effect should inuariobly be made in the panchanama. Quantitg to be dranon for the sanlapllng: 2.3 The quantitg to be draum in each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of alL narcotb drugs and psAchotropic substances saue in cases of opium, ganja and charos (hasish) tuhere a quantitg of 24 grams in each case is required for chembal test. The same quantities shall be taken for the dupLbate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/ containers shall be well mixed to moke it homogeneous and reptesentatiue before the sample (in duplicote) is dranun." I I i .l \ GAC, J Crlp-5483-2023

5. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never in possession of any contraband; the petitioner is ready to seek medical help and to go to a rehabilitation center or de-addiction for immunity from prosecution. It is further contended that if the protection is accorded to him, he will be prosecuted for the offence under Section 27 of thre NDPS Act and if the entire version of the Investigating Agency is taken to be absolute truth even then the petitioner is charged for the offence under Section 27 of NDPS Act, which provides mandatory protection under Section 64A of the NDPS Act. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments: (il ln Toofan Singh u. State of Tamil Nadur, the Madras High Court has held that it is imperative here to mention that ':r'' when the confessional statements are in itself inadmissible the entire charge sheet and prosecution against thg accused is against the law. I crl.A.No.152 of2ol3 dared 08,10.20l3 5 GAC, J Crlp 54a3_2O23 (ii) In .l\Ioor Aga o. State of Punjabz, the Hontrle Supreme Court has held as follows: "91. The logical corollary of these dscussions is that the guidelines such as those present in the Standing Order cannot be blatantlg flouted. and substantial compliance therewith must be insi.sted upon for so that sanctitA of phgsical euidence in such co.ses remains intact. Clearlg, there has been no substantial ampli.ance of these guidelines by the inuestigating authoitg tohich leads to drawing of an aduerse inference dgainst them to the effect that had" such euidence been produced, the same wouLd haue gone against the prosecution."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgments of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.2902 and 9O6 of 2023, wherein this Court has quashed the proceedings in the concerned cases against the accused after getting them rehabilitated.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that he has received written instructions from the Sub-lnspector of Police, S.R.Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein it is stated lhat on verification, it was disclosed that the consumers have undergone rehabilitation and found it to be a genulne one. I Crl. A.No. t0 l,l ol 1008 [Arisrng orrr oI SLP (Crl. ) No. 5597 of2006] i 6 GAC, J Crlp-5483_2O23

9. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 64-A of the Act, which reads as under:- "64A. Immunity from prosecution to addicts uolunteering for treatment.--Ang addbt, who b charged ulith an offence puni.shable under section 27 or with offences inuoluing small quantitA of narcotic drugs or psgchotropic substances, who uoluntarily seeks to undergo medical .treatment for de-addiction from o hospitaL or an institution maintained or recognized by the Gouernment or a local autltoitA and undergoes such treatment shalt not be linble to prosecution under section 27 or under anA other section for offences inuoluing small quantitg of narcotic drugs or psgchotropic substonces: Prouided that the said immunitg from prosecutton maA be uithdrawn if the addict does not undergo the complete treatment for de-addiction." lO. In Sanjiu Bhatnogar u. State3, Madras l{igtr Court held as under:- " 1 1. Giuen the attendant facts and circumsLances, the prosecution in the instant case maA at best be able to make out an offence under Section 27 of NDPS Act. The questbn that arlses for considerotion uxtuld be uthether the accused should be required to undergo trial towards his conubtion for offe nce und.er Sectton 27 of NDPS Act and would he only therea.fter be entitlcd to seek the benefit of Section 64(A) of NDPS Act. Simplg put, Section 64(A) of NDPS Act is one intended to rid an user oJ'drugs from the euil tlrcreof and towards his rehabilitation, the end object being to facilitate a life free of drugs. ThLs Court I crt.R.c. No.l2z8 0F 2015 and lrl.P.Nos I & 2 01 2015 1 GAC, J Crlp_s483_2023 is of the uieu.t that uhen the mateial gathered bg the prosecution itself infonns the petitioner to be an user of drugs and not in too large a quantitA the prouision for rehabilitation should be giuen effect to at the earliest. 12. Exercising pouers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, thi,s Court presently would pass the folLowing order: (i) Charge in co.se pending in C.C.No.46 of 2O15 on tlrc file of leamed II Add.itional Specittl Judge under NDPS Act, Chennai, shalL be altered to one for offence under Sectbn 27 of the NDPS Acf. Further proceedings in the case shall be staged pending further orders of this Court. (ii) Petitioner shalL be required to undergo treatment tolDards de addiction at T.T.Ranganathan Clinbal Research Found.ation (TTK Hospital), Chennai" LUhiLh i,s infonned, to be recognized by Couernment a,s a hospital for treating and reltabilitating persons addicted to alcohol and other drugs. (iii) Upon completion of treatment and. reloted programmes, T.T. Ranganathan Clinbal Research Foundation (TIk Hospital), Chennai, is required to file a report regarding the success or othenuisc of the treatment afforded to the petitioner and the state of heaLth (mentaL ond phgsical) as on the date of such report. Such report maA be ftled before this Court not leter than on 10.06.2016. After 22 dags, the rehabilitation institution submitted a progress report about the accused to Madras Hiqh Court stating that, "The patient undentrcnt three ueeks of psychotherapeutb interuention for treatment of substance dependence. This included attending re-educatiue lecture sessiotls, group I , 8 GAC, J Crlp-5483,2O23 therapy, AA sharing and counseLinq sessrrrns. As part of the familg programn"Le hi.s wife also attended clo.sses o.nd counselling. Patient has been uery co- operatiue throughout the term of treatment and ho,s o.d,equate familg support. To ensure qualitotiue sobrietg follout-up u.tith course\or has been recommended." Recording the submiss,on and giuing the attendant facLs and cbcumstanceq bg applging Section 64(A) of the Act and the petitioner therein has gained immunity from proseartion, consequentlg proceedings before the II Additional Special Judge under NDPS Act, Chennai, haue been qua.shed by the Madros High Court."

11. In the instant case also, nothing has been seized from the possession of the petitioner and the pctitioner was charged for the offence under Section 27 of NDPS Act. Further, in Sanjiu Bhatnagar a. State (3 supra), the Madras High Court, after hearing the matter, quashed the proceedings against the petitioner therein, however, the petitioner herein was referred for successful rehabilitation as envisagcd undcr Seclion 6a(A) of the NDPS Act. Even in the instant case, according to the !=' written instructions of the prosecution, thc petitioner has undergone rehabilitation.

12. Further, the medical report ol the petitioner discloses that the petitioner has undergonc rchabilitation ancl he has no 9 GAC, J Crlp_5483 2023 complaints arrd maintaining well. He had occasionally consumed alcohol and no other substances were used and psycho education is done.

13. A perusal of the said certificate dated O6.1 1.2022 filed by the. petitioner would reveal that he has undergone successful treatmint from the government recognized de-addiction centre i.e., Vicinity Multi Specialty Clinics, Hyderabad and there is no presence of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substance in his body and that the petitioner was proactive in the sessions and responded well to the counseling.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Madras High Court, which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.21 in S.C. NDPS No.273 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hydcrabad, are hereby quashed. l i t0 ,l GAC, J Crlp _5483 2023 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand ciosed. Date:.22.08.2023 TMK G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTI{Y, J