The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claiming immunity from prosecution under Section 64A of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the definition of 'addict' and the need for the person to be dependent on the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance to claim immunity.

1. By this application, the petitioner challenges an order dated 22.9.2006 passed in Misc.Application No. 237 of 2006 in NDPS Spl.Case No. 97 of 2001.

2. It is not in dispute that by this order the application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. A copy of that application is at page 317 of this Revision paper book.

4. The brief facts leading to this application (Misc.Application No. 236 of 2006) being filed by the applicant, are that the applicant is Accused No.2 in the NDPS Spl.Case No.97 of 2001. The NDPS case arises out of a complaint dated 2.8.2001 filed by the respondents in the Special Court. The petitioner states that on this complaint, the above NDPS case has been registered.

5. The case of the prosecution according to the present petitioner is as summarised by him in his application before the Court below. It proceeds thus :- (i) That on 5.5.2001 the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau/Respondent, based on prior information, arranged surveillance at an ATM Centre, Hong Kong Bank, J.V.P.D. Scheme, Mumbai. One Nasir A. Shaikh/Accused No.1 was spotted by the officers of the Respondent alighting from the taxi and waiting on the footpath opposite the ATM Centre. At about 1.40 hrs the Applicant arrived on the spot in an Opel Astra Car registration no. MH-02-N-4043 ("the Car") and parked near the abovementioned ATM Centre. That the Accused No.1 entered the Car and the applicant was noticed near an ATM machine inserting an ATM card into the slot. The officers of the Respondent no.1 surrounded the Car and on demand, were handed ‘goods’ by Accused No.1 later confirmed to be 11 plastic vials containing 9 gms of cocaine. (ii) That as per the complaint, on preliminary interrogation, Accused No.1 revealed that the seized 9 gms of cocaine was out of 15 gms procured from one Tony Gomes/Accused No.3. However the Seizure panchanama dt. 5.5.2001 and the NCB report to Head Office, Delhi dt. 5.5.2001 annexed with the complaint, reveal that during the abovementioned preliminary interrogation Accused No.1 had further specified that he had come to the spot to deliver 1 gm cocaine to the Applicant. (iii) That as per the complaint, the statement of Applicant was recorded at the office of the Respondent u/s 67 NDPS on 05.05.2001 wherein, the Applicant stated that he had telephoned Accused no.1 on the evening of 4.5.2001 and asked for 1 gm of cocaine to be brought to HSBC at night and that he normally paid Accused No.1 Rs.3500/- for one gram. The Applicant also stated that he had met Accused No.1 at a bar/pub about 4 months ago and began using cocaine only 4 months ago solely for personal consumption and did not indulge with anyone else. He further stated that over the 4 months, he procured 1 gm of cocaine on 4-5 occasions solely for personal use and that the 1 gm would last over 2-3 days. The Applicant also stated that he began consumption of cocaine due to occupational stress which he faced during his shooting of films, as often the work extended for about 14-16 years. (iv) That similarly, as per the complaint, the Accused no.1 in his statement u/s 67 of the NDPS Act recorded on 5.5.2001, stated that while in the car with the Applicant, it was agreed that he would give the Applicant 1 gm of cocaine out of the 9 gms in his possession. He further stated that the rest of the 8 gm was for his personal consumption and selling to other persons. He stated that he was to sell 1 gm of cocaine to the Accused @ Rs.3500/- per gram and that the Accused on various earlier occasions had purchased 1 gm from him on each occasion @ Rs.3,000/- per gram. He also confirmed that he had purchased a total of 15 gms from one Tony Hector Gomes/Accused No.3 @ Rs.3,000/- and had already consumed 6 gms of it. (v) That no other incriminating items or articles were found during the spot search of the Applicant or during the subsequent search of the Applicant’s residence at Juhu on 6.5.2001. (vi) That on 05.05.2001 Accused No.3 was intercepte