AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.3 in S.C.NDPS.No.17 of 2022 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhongir for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(b) r/w 22(b) r/w 29 of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’).
The petitioner is being prosecuted for consumption of narcotic drug. It is the case of the Choutuppal police that on reliable information, conducted raid near Highway-9 hotel at Choutuppal and apprehended three persons A1 to A3. Seizures were affected and proceedings were drafted in accordance with the procedure laid down. The police, during the course of investigation, identified this petitioner as a consumer.
The police, having concluded investigation filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 8(C) r/w 21(b), 22(b) and 27 of the Act. According to the charge sheet, this petitioner is liable for the offence under Section 27 of the Act.
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-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 Hope Trust Hospital as a patient with ID No.P-9510. After the petitioner had undergone counseling and the therapy sessions, the Hope Trust Hospital authorities i.e., Consultant Psychiatrists namely Dr.Prasad V.A certified that this petitioner was duly screened for substance of abuse on 25.10.2022 to 02.12.2023 which yielded negative result. In the said circumstances, this Court under inherent powers may quash the proceedings against the petitioner invoking the provisions under Section 64-A of the Act.
At the stage of admission, this Court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get instructions regarding the correctness of the certificate filed by the petitioner issued by Hope Trust Hospital on 09.01.2023. On instructions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner had undergone therapy sessions and the contents of the certificate produced by the petitioner before this Court are correct.
Section 64 of the Act empowers the Central Government or the State Government to grant immunity to any person who is directly or indirectly privy to violation of any of the penal provisions of NDPS Act, with a view to obtaining his evidence for prosecuting the accused in a case. Section 64 of the Act is similar to Section 306 of Cr.P.C whereby a Court can tender pardon. However it is the state or central government that is competent to grant immunity under section 64.
Section 64-A of the Act was substituted by Act 9 of 2001 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:
“64A. Immunity from prosecution to addicts volunteering for treatment.—Any addict, who is charged with an offence punishable under section 27 or with 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 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:
Provided that the said immunity from prosecution may be withdrawn if the addict does not undergo the complete treatment for de-addiction.”
Section 64-A of the Act was introduced but there is no mention about the authority, 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 drugs. In the absence of any specification regarding the authority or the procedure to grant immunity from prosecution to the addicts volunteering treatment, this Court under the inherent powers can quash the proceedings by granting immunity from prosecution considering the facts and circumstances in a given case. In similar circumstances, the High Court of Madras in the case of Sanjiv Bhatnagar v. State, represented by its Intelligence Officer (2016 SCC OnLine Mad 33796) and also in the case of Anish Kumar Dundoo v. State of Telangana (2021 SCC OnLine TS 2195) invoked the provision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for grant of immunity from prosecution.
Since the certificate produced by the petitioner reveals that this petitioner had attended psychosocial counseling and also other therapy sessions over a period in Hospital and when it is stated that substance of abuse on 25.10.2022 to 02.12.2022 yielded negative result, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by granting immunity.
In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.NDPS.No.17 of 2022 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhongir, are hereby quashed.
Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand disposed.