Allowed

Mr. Datta Aditya v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC3 Apr 2023CRLP/509/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings against a drug consumer accused under the NDPS Act, granting immunity under Section 64-A. The Court relied on inherent powers and upheld earlier precedents allowing quashing of cases against addicts undergoing verified treatment.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.4 in S.C. NDPS No. 17 of 2022 are quashed.

Mr. Datta Aditya Vs The State of Telangana and another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32s1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 509 OF 202 3

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr. Datta Aditya, S/o. Bheem Shanker, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 151, Doyans Town Ship Colony, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶9

...pETrroNER/AccusED No.4

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana.

¶13

D. Anil, S/o. Not Known Aged Major, Occ. Sub-lnspector of Police, O/o.

¶14

choutuppat^potice station, choutuppat, Rachoko.nda,^{ya8Xlb.rftTSy[bh"lffiffi*.}

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr,P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for records and quash proceedings in the Charge Sheet in SCNDPS.No. 17 of 2022 on the file of 1't Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir for offenses punishable under Sections 8c r/w 21(b) rlw 22(b),27 of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPSA).

¶16

l.A. NO: 2OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 in SC-NDPS.No. 17 of 2022 on the file of l^stAddl. District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir for offenses punishable underSections 8c r/w 21(b) rlw 22(b), 27 of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPSA) including appearance of the accused, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶18

l.A NO: 1OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with thing of certified copy of Charge Sheet in SC-NDPS.No. 17 ot 2022 on the file of 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir for offenses punishable under Sections Sc r/w 21(b) tlw 22(b\ rlw 29 ot Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPSA), pending final disposal of the main Criminal Petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E VENKATA SIDDHARTHA, Advocate for the Pelitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for lhe Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HC)N'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDDIl CRI MINAL PETITION No.5O9 OF 2(r2t3

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Crir-irLal Petition is filed to quash thr proceedings against th.e pr trtioner/Accused No.4 in S.C.lli)PS.No.17 of 2022 on the lic of I Adclitionzrl District & Srr;r;io;rs Judge, Bhongir frrr th: otTences ulldcr Sections 8(c) 'lu, 21(b) r/w 22(b\ r/w 29 :f Narcotic: Dr.trg ar.rd Psychctropir: Srbstances Act, 19tj5 for r: rrrr: 'tl-rt' Act').

¶24

2.^'l'he ltetitttrrcr is bcrng lrrosecuted for corrsumption of narcotic dr-u51. t is the case ol' 1l-re Choutuppal lt olioe that on reliable^jnlbrrni tion, thc polrcc t:onducted raid :.,.:ar Highwayt hotel at Clic, rtuppal ancl apprchended t1-rree 1lr:rscns 41 to A'3. Seizures^\r e^-e aflectecl ancl proceedings rve:-e rlrafted in accordancr: wi.r the proccdurc laid down. The p,oli<:e, during the coursr: of inrrestigation, idcntified this p,:t Ltioner as a consum(-'r of nr, rc olic clrugs.

¶25

The 1;o1ic, , havir-rg conclrrrled investigalirt:. fil:d charge sheet for tlre o''e rccs unclcr Scctions B(C) r/w lZllb),22(b) and

¶26

)

¶27

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

¶28

+. 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 tt: e 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-A of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit 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. He further submits that the petitioner had undergone counseling and other therapy sessions in Hopc Trust Hospital asa patient with ID No.P9510. Alter the petitioner had undergone counseling and the therapy sessions, the Hope Trust Hospital authorities i.e., Consultant Psychiatrists namely Dr. Prasad V.A certilied that

¶29

¶30

this petitrcner \'as duly screened for substan.(re of abuse on 25.7O.2022 to ).t..',.2.2023 which yielded negative result. In the said circumst: nces, this Court under inherer1. powers may quash tht: pr,ir:eedings against the petitioner invoking the provisions r-u.r<l :r Section 64-A of the Act.

¶31

At the st;'gr: of admission, this Court direr:t r:r1 the learned Additiolal Prrl:lir: Prosecutor to get instructions :egrrrding thc correctness of tlre certificate fi1ed by the petitioner issued by Hope Trust 1 or;pital on 09.01.2023. Ort insttuc[ions, the learned A,ldilr,rnal Public Prosecutor would str:,mi. that thc petitiont:r h;rcl r irclcrgone therapy sessions and -l-Le contents ol the certillc'ate rr rcuced by the petitioner before r-his Court are correct

¶32

Sectirn^(, l of the Act empowers the^()entr,rl Governmenl or the Stat c^(l l,r:nrment to grant immunity to iarLir p,lrson who is directlr. or rr[lrectly prir,y to violation of any of the penal provisior-rs of I' DP[] Act., with a view to obtainingl hir; eviclence lor prosecrrtrn,- t .re :rccused in a case. Section^(i! of the Act is similar to Sec o r 306 of Cr.P.C whereby rr Corrr t can tcncler

¶33

¶34

pardon. However it is the state or central government that is competent to grant immunity under section 64.

¶35

Section 64-A of the Act was substituted by Act 9 of 2OOl with effect from 02.10.2001 for the purpose of granting immunity to addicts. Section 64-A of the Act is extracted for the sake of convenience

¶36

"64A. Immunity lrom prosecution to addicts voluntccring for treatment. -Any addict, who is charged with an offcnce purrisl'rable under scction 27 or witlr offences involving small quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, who voluntarily seeks to undergo medical treatment for de-addiction from a hospital or an institution maintained or recognised by the Governmcnt or a local authority and undergoes such treatnlent shall not be liable to prosecution under section 27 or under any other section for offences involving smal1 quantrty of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances:

¶37

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

¶38

Scction 64-,{ of the Act was introduced but there is no mention about the authorit5r, 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-A 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

¶39

¶40

drugs. [n the altsence of any specificatiorr reg ]1 dirLg the authority or he procedure to grant imrn,,-rrr;ty frorn proseculion tc, the addicts volunteerir-rg rrear.rnr:nt, tl-ris Court under t ne inherent powers can ,:llrirsl thc proceeding,s 1r r grallting immunity frorn l)^{-.,se(.Lrtioll} considering tht lacts and circumstances it-r lr Fir en case In similar :ircr. mstanccs, the High Corrrt ot-Mir(l^-rrs in tl'rt: case of Sanjiv Elhatnagar v. State, represento,l by its Intelligence Ct[ficer (2016 SCC Onlinc Mad :]1,'!)(-,) arrct also in the ceL;e of Anish Kumar Dundoo v. iitate of Telangana (202 SCC Onlinc TS 2195) irrr,rkccl rht: provision unc )r Section 482 of Cr.P.C for I^{ra 11t} ol immunity .fror p :osecution.

¶41

Sir-rce thr certificate producerl by thc J:etitioncr reveals that 1 ri s petitioner had a1 tenclerl ps9 r.11e566.i.',1 counseling anr: rLlso other therapy sessionr; over a perriod ln Hospiterl eLr l when it is staled that subs,tancl of tbrrsc on 25.1O.21022 tut 02.12.2022 vicldcd ncgar ir",r: rr r.;trlr . this

¶42

¶43

Court deems it appropriate to quash the^proceedings against the petitioner by granting immunity.

¶44

In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in S.C.NDPS.No.\7 ol 2022 on the hle of I Additional District & Sessions Judge,^Bhongir, are hereby quashed.

¶45

1 1. Criminal Petition is allowed.^{Consequently,}

¶46

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand^disposed

¶47

Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

Y. SECTION bFF ICER

¶50

To,