IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3727 of 2026 Date: 26.03.2026 Between:

Uday Kiran and another ...petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad ...respondent

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed to seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C.NDPS.No.128 of 2025 pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Sangareddy.

2. Heard Mr. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. C. Ruthiwik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jitendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent/State.

3. On 19.03.2023, at about 16:00 Hrs, while the S.I. of Police, Sangareddy Rural Police Station was performing vehicle check along with the staff, a person was coming on a motorcycle, carrying a bag. On seeing the police, the person tried to escape, however, he was apprehended and was found in possession of MBMA Drug. During the course of investigation, it was found that petitioners were ‘consumers’ who purchased MBMA drug for the purpose of consumption, subsequently, Sub Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.141 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Section 8(C) read with Sections 21(b) and 27 of NDPS Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). After investigation, the investigating officer, filed charge sheet vide S.C.NDPS.No.128 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Sangareddy, for the offences under Sections 8(C) read with Sections

21(b) and 27 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present case as accused Nos.2 and 3 solely basing upon the confession statements given by the other co-accused. The police have not seized any contraband from the possession of the petitioners. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that whether the petitioners have committed the offence or not, has to be revealed after full-fledged trial and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for quashing of the proceedings.

6. 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 obtain 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.

7. 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 2 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 recognized 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.”

8. 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