Allowed

Anish Kumar Dundoo v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2021CRLP/1231/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed NDPS prosecution proceedings against the petitioner for possessing a small quantity of LSD. Relying on Section 64-A NDPS Act and the precedent of Sanjib Bhattacharya, the Court held that immunity from prosecution applies as the accused successfully underwent government-recognized de-addiction treatment, confirming the absence of narcotics in his body and the rehabilitation o

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in NDPS S.C. No. 14 of 2019 were quashed.

Anish Kumar Dundoo Vs State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD:.

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1 231 0F 2021

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Anish Kumar Dundoo, s/o Anil Kumar Dundoo Age.32, occ.student R/o H.No 6-1-27s, Dundoo I,4a nsion Padmaraonagar, Hyderabad

¶9

...PET|TIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

¶10

AND

¶11

State^of Tela ngana,_th-rough its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶12

The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Secunderabad Station, Secunderabad.

¶13

(R2 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 17108t2021 in tA No.2/202.1 in Crl.P.No.1231/2021)

¶14

...DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/ PROPOSED RESPONDENT

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in NDpS S.C. No. 14 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Court, Nampally at Hyderabad on such terms and conditions as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper

¶16

LA. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the ltrlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitione r/Accu sed No.1 in NDPS SC No.14 of 2019 on the file of Ld. I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.V.GOpALA KRISHNA GOKHALEY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Assistant public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

HONOURABLE JUSTICE^{G. SI(I DEVI}

¶22

CITIMINAL^{PETITIONNo.1 231 of 202-l}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The petitioner,^{who is AccusedNo'1 in NDPS S C'No 14 of} 2019 on the fite^{of the l-AdditionalMetropolitanSessionsJudge,} Nampally at^{Hyderabad,filedthis Criminal Petition under Section} 482 Cr.P.C. to^{quash the proceedingsinitiated against him in the} above case. A^{charge sheet cameto be filed againstthe petitioner} and others for^{the offences punishable underSections 8 (c) readwith} Sections 22^{(b) ancl 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs &} I'sychotropic^{SubstancesAct,1985 (for short "the Act")'}

¶25

2..l.hc,caseofthc'prosecutiorristhatot:rlT.0T.2|)17or-rreliable infonnation^{aboutillegalpossessionancl sale of I-SD at Hi-Tech} Ricksl-rarvs at^{ParacliseCircle, Secunderabatl, the responclentofficers} went to the said^{place,foundthe petitionerin the premises and on} search they found^{16 LSD blots(stamps) and the same was seized by} the officers under^{a cover of panchanamaand that on enquiry' the} petitioner/A-1.^{confessed that he and his friend by name Ritul} Agarwal/ A-2^{wiil book the online order for tSD (Lysergic Acid} Bithylamide) using^{dark web through crypto currency and the} parcel will be^{receivedthrough lndianPostal DePartmentand that} thev used to consume^{thernselves along with friencls and remaining} LSD blots^{(stamps) will be sold to A-3 to A-5 and others The} pctitioner also^{re'vealed that not only LSD, theY usetl to consume}

¶26

garlia also and further stated that he and his friend A-2 used the vehicle Crand i10 bearing No.TS 09 ER 0050 for transportation and sale of drugs to A-3 to A-5 regularly. Basing on the said seizure and confession, a case in Crime No.55 oI 2017 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Secunderabad has been registered against the petitioner and others. After completiorr of investigation ancl after collecting all the t.naterial p.lpcrs, cl-rarge shect has been filecl against tltc pctitiolter anc{ others, which was taken cognizance as NDPS S.C.No.14 of 2019 on the file of the l-Additiorral Mehopolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Court, Narnpally, I-lyderabad. The p-rresent Crinrinal Petition is filed to quash the Froceedings agair-rst the petitioner ir-r the said case.

¶27

Heard leamed Counsel appearing for the petitioner/ A-1, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial Court framed the charge against the petitior-rer under Section 22 (a) of the Act as arnended, which is a bailable offence and is pultisllable uP to six rnonths as prescribcd untler the Act. Ile further submits that Section 64-A of the Act provides irnmunitv frorn prosecution for tlre offence involving srnall quantity and the quantity involved in this case is also small quar-rtity and as such, the petitioner filed an application under Section 64-A of the Act vide Crl.M.P.No.23B of 2020, which was dismissed on 25.11.2019. He

¶29

further submits that earlier also the petitioner filed Crl.M.p.No.737 of 2019 seeking discharge and while dismissing the said petition, the trial Court observed that the alleged contraband is small quantity and in spite of having observed that the alleged contraband being small quantity, the hial Judge ignored the provision of Section 64_,{ of the Act ancl erroneously rejecterl the applir:ation to grant immunity to the petitioner from prosecution. Hence,, the petitioner filed the present Crirninal petition. Learneci Counsel further subrnits that Section 64-A of the Act, provicles immunity from prosecution to the accused, who volunteers for treatment. ln this case, the petitioner has undergone treatment from the Government recognized De-Addiction Centre, pheonix Rehab Services private Limited, Hyderabad and after completion of the counseling sessions, the doctors had taken blood and urine samples of the petitioner, which proved negative for presence of any narcotic or psychotropic substances in his body. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for immunity from prosecution under Section 64_A of the Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Marlras I-ligh Court in Sanjia Bhnhngar a. Statel . Hence, pra,yer,l to quash the proceeciings against the petitioner.

¶30

5 L.earrrecl Assistant^public prosecutor fairry conct,c"leci to the, fact ti-rat the contraband seized from the petitioner is a small quantity, for which the petitioner is entitled for immunitv for prosecution under Section 64-A of the Act. 'MeNUlrNlqtTgl2ot6

¶31

-1

¶32

Before proceeding^{further,it wouldbe appropriate to referto} Section 64-A^{of the Act, which readsas under:-}

¶33

.I lt1tlltlll s ti flto aclclicts^aolunteerifl treabtlent. -^{Any addict,who is charged with an offence} punishable^{under section27 or withoffencesinvolvingsmall} quantity of^{narcotic drugsor Psychotropic substances' who} voluntarily^{seeks to undergo medical treatment for de-addiction} from^{a hospital or an institution maintained or recognized by the} Governmentoralocalauthorityandundergoessuchtreatment shall not^{be liable to Prosecution uncler section 27 or under any} othcr s!'ctioll^{for offenct's involving small quantiW of narcotic} clrugs ot'^{psvcl.totroptc substances: Provrcledthat thesair'l} immunitv^{frotn ptosecutiotr mavbe u'ithclrawrt ii the aeldictcloes} not undcrgo^{the comPlcteheatmellt for de-addichon"}

¶34

7 ln Saniia^{Bhatnagar o' State (7 supra)' MadrasHighCourt}

¶35

held^{as under:-}

¶36

"11. Given^{the attendant facts and circumstances'the} prosecution^{in the instantcase mayat best be able to make} out an offence^{underSection 27 of NDPSAct' The question} that^{arisesfor considerationwouldbe whether the accused} should^{be required to undergotrial towards his conviction} for offence^{underSection 27 of NDPS Act and would he} only thereafter^{be entitled to seek the benefit of Section} 64(A) of^{NDPS Act' Simply put' Section 64(A) of NDPS Act} isoneintendet]toridanuserofdrugsfrorrrtheer,ilthcreof and towards^{his rehabilitation'the end obiectLreing ttr} facilitate^{a life free of drugsThis Courtis of the vicw'tlrat} whenthematerialgatheredbytheprosecutionitself in{orms^{tl-re pctitionerto be an user of drugsanclnot in too} large^{a quantitv the;rrovision for rehabilitation shouldbe} given^{effect to at the earliest'}

¶37

Exercising^{powers under Section482 Cr'P C' this Court} presently^{would passthe following orderl}

¶38

¶39

(i) Charge^{in case pending in C C'No'46 of 2015 on the file} of i"*r,"a^{lI Additional Special Judgeunder NDI€ Act'} Chennai,^{shall be altered to onefor offence underSection} 27 of the^{NDPS Act' Furtherproceedings in the case shall} be stayed^{pending furtherordersof this Court'}

¶40

(ii) Petitioner^{shall be required to undergotreatment} towards^{de-addiction atT T RanganathanClinical} ResearchFounelatiot-t(TTKHospital)'Chennai'w'hichis irrlormeil,^{to be recognizedby Governrnent as a hospital} for treating^{antl rehabilitatingpersonsatL.licte''1 to alcohol} anel other^t{rugs'

¶41

(iii) U;rou^{conlPletiollo[treatnlentalldrclated} prog.urlmes,^{T T Ranganathan ClinicalResearch} Forndation^{(TTK Hospital)' Chennai' is requiretl to file a} report^{regardingthe success or otherwise of the treatment} afforded^{to the} Petitioner^{and the state of health(mental} and^{physicai)as on the date of suchreport'Suchreport} may^{be Iiledbeforethis Court not latelthan on 10'06'2016'}

¶42

Afler^{22 days, the rehabilitation institutionsubmitteda}

¶43

progress^{reportabout the accused to Madras HighCourt} stating^{that, "The patient underwenttfueeweeksof} ps)'chotherapeutic^{interventionfor treatmentoi substance} depentlence.^{This incluclecl attending re-etlucativelecture} scssiot-ts,^{group therapy' AA sharingantl counselling} sessions.^{As part of the family programmehis wifealso} attendec.lclassesatrelcounselling.Patientlrasbeenr,ervco. tcrm of^{treatl.ncnt anc-l has}

¶44

operative^{throughoutthe} To ensure^{qualitativesobrietv}

¶45

adequate^{farnilvsuPPort'} follow-uP^{*'ith counsellorhasbcen rec ommclrdel1 "} Recorcling^{the submission antl giving the attendantfacts} and circumstances,^{by applying Section64(A)of the Act} and the^{petitioner therein has gainedinrmunitY from} before^{the II}

¶46

prosecution, coneqllently^proceedings

¶47

-.-*......-__

¶48

Additional Special Judge under NDPS Act, Chcnnai, havc been quashed by the Madras High Court."

¶49

In the instant case also, admittedlv, the quantity which has been seized is smail quantity. Further, the^{petitioner was charged} only for the offences under Section^{8 (c) read with Section 22 (a) ot} the Act, which is punishable^{with rigorous imprisonmentfor a term} which may extend to six months,^{or with fine which may extendto} ten thousand rupees or with^{both.Therefore,the provisionof} Section 64-A of the^{Act is applicableto the petitioner'Further,the} Madras High Court while^{hearing the matter, exercised inherent} powers under Section^{482 of Cr.P.C. and quashedthe proceeciings} against the petitior-rer^{therein, howeverreferring to the successful} rehabilitation envisagecl^{underSection64-A of the Actln the} instant case, the^{petitionerhas filed a certificate issued by Pheor.rix} Rehab Services Private^{Limited, Hyderabad For better appreciation'} it would be appropriate^{to referto the contentsof the saidcertificate'} which is as under:-

¶50

"This is to inlorm^{andcertify thatMr'Anish Dandoo'S/o Sri} Anil Dandoo,^{Age: 32 years, Occ: Business'R/o'} Padmaraonagar,^{Secunderabad, hascome for DrugAbuse} Counselling.^{It is learnt from the client that he hasbeen} charged in^{a case for an offence underthe NDPSAct'}

¶51

He clairns^{to have not used an,v narcotic or PsvchotroPic} substauccs.^{Currcntir',hc tloes lrot exhibitanv activc} rvithr.llarr'al^{svlrPt()nls hcnce llotrL'quircli all'} cletorifica tion.^{Llc is subjcctcd to stanclarclbloo''i tcsts} l.ue5critrecl^{to vcrifv tht: Ltrescltccof anv lltlrcotic ' )r}

¶52

¶53

¶54

psychotropic substances and the blood investigation^rePort tested negative for the presence of any narcotic^or psvchotropic substances.

¶55

I-le unde,nvent the following Counselling/Therapy⁽⁸⁾ sessions at Phoenix rehab services, Hyderabad.

¶56

1. Assessment: Case historv details collected from the clicnt. Client is giverr Drug abuse scrcening test (DAST) - he scored 4 r'vhich indicate kxv for substance abuse clisorder.

¶57

1. Screening: Client's 12 panel Drug test is tlone a! the end of counseling process to rule out any active narcotic or psychofropic substance use.

¶58

1. Drug test results are negative for the presence of any narcotic or psychotropic substances and are discussed with client. The test result is enclosed.

¶59

( (

¶60

1. Psycho-education and counseling sessions done on - reasons for drug abuse, ill effects of drugs. consequences, complications of drug abuse, REBT, CBT, relapse prevcntion, available of support network svstcms to sta), clrug frcc ancl Legal aspects of Drug abuse.,,,

¶61

The contents of the certificate filerl by the petitioner would rr.veal that the petitioner has unrlergone successful beatment fronl the Co'ernment recognized De-Aclcliction center, phoenix Rehab Serv.ices Private L.imitect, Hyderabad and that there was no presence of any narcotic or psychotropic substances in his bocly.

¶62

10' For the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the fact that the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in the judgment supra is also applicable to the facts of the present case, I am of the

¶63

¶64

oPinion that it is a fit case to quash thc p-r16sep,1lngs al]ainst tht, petitioner/ ,,-l

¶65

I L Accordinglv, thc Criminal petition is allora.ecl and thtr proceedings irritiated against the pctitioner/A_1 in NDpS S.C.No.14 of 201.9 on the file of the l-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶66

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶67

this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶68

Sd/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/iTRUE COPY'

SECTTON OFFICER

The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶74

2, The station House officer, Prohibition and Excise police station, secunderabad.

¶75

9 9n"^{CC to Sri V.Gopala Krishna Gokhaley, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶76

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor (TG), High Court foi tfre Stite of Tetangana, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶77

Two CD Copies

¶78

One Spare Copy

Ki.f

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/09/2021

ORDER

CRLP.No.1231 ot2021

SIA )t
ffi
($'(
e ,'
lf,
1 6 sEP 2021
t)
1
-. D:i -..1{-'
--.-,- - ..=;-

¶85

ALLOWING THE CRL.P.

¶86

<br>- --:2

Anish Kumar Dundoo v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anish Kumar Dundoo v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janaveni Raju and Another Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Erugu Balram, R.R.District Vs Vivekananda School and Anr, R.R.District

Naini Rajender Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

Jatin Agarwal Vs T.Harshini

Dumpala Srikar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Lakshmi Parvathi Vs The State of Telangana and another