Allowed

Mr. Vegesna Chaitanya Kumar , Vegeshna Chaitanya Kumar v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC14 Mar 2023CRLP/233/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a petitioner accused of drug consumption under Section 27 NDPS Act. Relying on inherent powers and Section 64-A, the court granted immunity based on hospital certification of completed therapy and negative drug tests, distinguishing the case from trafficking offences.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner under S.C. NDPS No. 17 of 2022 were quashed, and immunity from prosecution was granted.

Mr. Vegesna Chaitanya Kumar , Vegeshna Chaitanya Kumar Vs… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32sl I

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.^SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL^{PETITION NO: 233 OF 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr. Vegesna Chaitanya Kumar @ Vegeshna Chaitanya Kumar,^S/o. Somaralu, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Public Prosecutor, High Courtof} Judicature at Hyderabad^{For the State of Telangana.}

¶11

2 D. Anil, S/o. Noi Known^{Aged Major, Occ Sub- lnspectorof Police,O/o.} Choutuppal Police Station;^{Choutuppal, Rachokonda, Yadari- Bonagiri,} Telangana

¶12

...RESP.NDENTS

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr.P-C prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of^{Groundsof Criminal Petition, the High Court may} be pleased to call for records^{andquash the ChargeSheet in SC NDPS.No. 17} ot io2z on the file of^{Hon'blelsrAddl.District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir for} offenses punishable under Sections^{8c r/w 21(b)tlw 22(b)} '^{27 of NarcoticDrug} and Psychotropic Substances^{Act, 1985 (NDPSA).}

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr.P.Cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of^{Groundsof CriminalPetition, the High Court may} be^pleased to stay all further^{proceedings in SC- NDPS.No. 17 of 2022 on lhe} file of Hon'ble 1"t Additional District^{and Sessions Judge, Bhongir for offenses} punishable under Sections 8c r/w 21(b)^{rlw 22(b)' 27 of Narcotic Drug and} Fsychotropic Substances Act,^{1985 (NDPSA)including appearance of the} accused, pending disposal of the^{criminal petition} ,Ai

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing,^{upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and^{upon hearing the arguments of Sri E Venkata} Siddhartha, Advocate for the^{Petitioner and the Public Prosecutoron behalfof} the Respondent No.1 and none^{appeared on behalfof Respondent No. 2, the} Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

H ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENI)I,]R

¶19

C TIMINAL PETITION No.233 OF 2O23

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

I. 'l'his Clr ninal Pctition is filed to quasl-r r.he frroceedings against thc re ti ioner/Accused No.3 in S.C.IlDpS.No.17 of 2022 on the fi1e ol I Additional District & Sr:r;sions Judge, Bhongir lbr t^-r<: oflcnces under Sections 8(c) r /u, 2l(b) r /tt, 22(b) r/w 29 ol \arcolic Drug and psychotro:,rc Siubstances Act, 198-'i (for short 'the Act')

¶22

The pr:tr.roner- is being prosecuted lor consr-rmption o[ narcotic rlnLg It;s thr. case of the ChoutlLpltal police that on reiiable inforn ation, :onducted raid near Higlrvvay-e hotel at Choutuppal u:d apprehended three pr:rsor s A1 to A3. Seizures \ rer affected and proceedings we lr) tlrafted in accordan<:e w ILL lhe procedure laid down. The 1,rolice, during the course o investigation, identihed this pe:.:itioner as a consumer

¶23

TI-re polir e. having concluded investigatiorr fi1ed charge sheet for the c Tcn:es under Sections S(C) r/u.21ib),22(b) and

¶24

¶25

27 of t!l,e Act. According to the charge sheet, this petitioner is liable for the offence under Section 27 of the Act.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even according to the police, this petitioner is a consumer of drug and the offence punishable would be under Section 27 of the Act. The petitioner had undergone treatment and immunity may be granted under Section 64-A of^NDPS Act. Learned counsel prayed indulgence of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings^granting immunity under Section 64-4' of the Act. Learned^counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that^{evenaccording} to the prosecution case, he was not^{involvedin drug trafficking} or peddling, however, he is identihed^{as one of the consumer} on the basis of investigation. He^{further submitsthat the} petitioner had undergone counseling and other^therapy sessions in Hope Trust Hospital^{as a patient with ID No.P-} 9510. After the petitioner had undergone^{counselingand the} therapy sessions, the Hope Trust Hospital^{authoritiesi.e.,} Consultant Psychiatrists namely Dr.Prasad^{V-A certified that}

¶27

¶28

tl-ris pe titrone ''\rzts dulv screer-red lor sutrstzxt:c ol abuse on 25.1O.2O')2 tr 02. 12.2O23 u'l-rir:l-i f ielded nr:gatir',: rer;ult. Ir-r the said circunrs rrces, this Court under inhererrt powers may quash the p o,:eeding s against the petitione - invoking the provisions un ler Section 64-A of the Act.

¶29

At the st rge of admission, this Court direcle.d the learned Additional Pu rlic Prosr:cutor to get instru<:tionr; -egarding the correctl-less o tl-rc r:crtificate fi1ed by the ltetiti tner issued by Hope Trtrst lr;,spital on 09.01 .2023. Ot inr;:r.uctions, the learned Addit onal Pultlic Prosecutor would slri)mit that the petitioner had un<lergone therapy sessions and tt:e r:ontents of the certihc:rte prorlucerl by the petitioner before t.eis Court are correct

¶30

Section⁽ 4 o[ the Act empowers the Centr:l Government or the State G x,ernment to grant immunit5- to arr'/ person who is directll' or ndirectll pri\y to violation of an5' of the penal provisions of IIDPS Acl , with a view to obtainir g hir; evidence lor prosecutin ;1hr: accused in a case. Section (izi of the Act is similtrr to Sec ic,n 306 of Cr.P.C whereby a Co-llt can tender

¶31

¶32

pardon. Howevcr it is the state or central government that is

¶33

competent to grant immunity under section 64.

¶34

Section 64-A ol the Act was substituted by Act 9 of 2OO1 with effect from O2.1O.2OO1 for the purpose of granting immunity to addicts. Section 64-A of the Act is extracted for the sake of convenience:

¶35

"64A. Immunity from prosecution to addicts voluntccring for treatment.-Any addict, who is charged with an offcnce punishable under section 27 or with offences involving small quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, u,ho voluntarily sceks 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 small quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances:

¶36

Provided that the said immunity from prosecution may be withdrawn if the addict does not undergo the complete treatment for de-addiction.'

¶37

8 Section 64-A of the Act was introduced but there is no mention about the authority, by whom such immunity carr be granted from prosecution to the addicts volunteering for treatment. The Legislature had deemed it lrt 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

¶38

¶39

I I

¶40

drugs. ln^t1-re .llscllce^{of al-n' spccificatior reglLrlingthe} authority or 1-r e proc:edure to^{grant irnmu .I tyfrom} prosectttiontctheadriictsvolunteeringtreatrl(:)ntthis Court un der [ht:^{inherent po''ers ca]lq-l r'Lsh the} proceedin€ls t y^{grantingimmunit-vfrom pt''l secution} consirlcl'ing th^{:a,:1 s alrd cit'cumstances irt a gi' 3n case'} ln similzrr circl^{Insr,ances.the High Courto1 Maclr'rs in the} case o[ Sanjit^{Bhatnagarv. State, rePresente(l b'y its} Intelligence CIIicer^{(2r)16 SCC Online Mad 3ll;'96) and} also in the^{cz so ,)f Anish Kumar Dundoo v'State of} Telangana⁽²⁽ 21 SCC^{Online TS 2195)inrc'kel the} provision unc lr Secti'cn^{482 of Cr'P'C for} i:lra:rt^of immunity lrorr^prosecurion.

¶41

g. Since th : certifit:ate produced by the 6reti.'ioner reveals that^l ris^{petitioner had attenderl psvt:hosocial} counseling an,^{re-lso other therapysessionsover a period} in Hospital^{ar C when it is stated that substanc-'of rrbuse} on 25. IO.'2022^{L't 02.1,2.2022yielded negalivere suh' this}

¶42

¶43

Court deems it appropriate to quash the proccedings

¶44

against the petitioner by granting immunit5r.

¶45

In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.NDPS.No.17 of 2022 on the file of I Additional

¶46

District & Sessions Judge, Bhongir, are hereby quashed.

¶47

Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently,

¶48

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand disposed.

¶49

Sd/. T. JAYAS E ASSISTANT REGIS R

¶50

//TRUE COPY// sEcTlo FFICER

¶51

To, 1 . The I Additional^{District and Sessions Judgeat Bhongir'} z. in" Staiion House officer,^{choutuppal police station,Rachakonda District} 5. r*o bc" to^{the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the Stateof Telangana'} tourl

¶52

+. tjnL dC to^{Sri E. Venkata Siddhartha, Advocate(OPUC)}

¶53