Tumula Ashish Kumar vs The State Of Telangana

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 aggrieved by the Docket Order, dated 10.07.2026, passed by the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XV Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally, (herein after called brevity "trial Court").

Heard Mr. V.Gopala Krishna Gokhaley, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.1656 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after called brevity “the Act”). He further submits that the petitioner was implicated as accused solely basing on the confession statement given by the co-accused. The alleged contraband seized in the present crime is small quantity and the ingredients for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27(a) of the Act, are not attracted.

However, the petitioner has filed application vide Crl.M.P. No.501 of 2026 before the learned trial Court invoking provisions of Section 64-A of the Act, requesting the learned trial Court to extend the benefit immediately or alternatively direct the petitioner to undergo treatment or counselling or follow-up programme in any Government Hospital, Government recognised De-Addiction Centre, or such institution as may be specified by the Court below. Learned trial Court without considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and without verifying the relief sought in the application, concurrently passed the impugned Docket Order, dated 10.07.2026, and the same is gross violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to law.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have give reasons by considering the application filed by the petitioner under Section 64-A of the Act.

Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.1656 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27(a) of the Act. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was implicated as an accused solely based on the confessional statement given by the co-accused. The record discloses that the petitioner filed an application vide Crl.M.P. No.501 of 2026 to extend the benefit of Section 64-A of the Act and grant immunity from prosecution or in the alternative, direct the petitioner to undergo treatment or counselling or de-addiction programme in any Government recognized centre. The learned trial Court through Docket Order dated 10.07.2026 passed the following order:

The above docket order reveals that the learned trial Court, without considering the averments made in the application and assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order and the same is gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

It is very much relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar¹, held as under:

In State of Pubjab v. Bhag Singh², the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

---^{}[] (2003) 11 SCC 519

(2004) 1 SCC 54 FR 1148: (1971) 2 QB 175: (1971) 2 WLR 742 (CA) observed: "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd., vs. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120 (NIRC)] it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order. The made, in other words, a speaking-out, "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain³, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.

It is relevant to mention that the learned trial Court ought to have give reasons while deciding the interlocutory application. In the case on hand, the learned trial Court, without assigning any reasons, passed a cryptic order, and the same is contrary to the

12008 15 SCC 7-1 settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra).

For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned Docket Order, dated 10.07.2026 passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed. The learned trial Court is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner vide Crl.M.P.No.501 of 2026 in Crime No.1656 of 2025 on the file of the KPHB Police Station, Cyberabad, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, the criminal petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.