1. Petitioners charged as consumers under NDPS Act; contraband not seized from them; proceedings sought to be quashed. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 9083
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. Sreenivas Rao, J
Uday Kiran – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3727 of 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Damodar Reddy, C. Ruthiwik Reddy
For the Respondents: Jitendar Rao Veeramalla
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Damodar Reddy, C. Ruthiwik Reddy
For the Respondents: Jitendar Rao Veeramalla
Confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible. Where no contraband was seized and the case relies solely on co-accused confessions, continuing proceedings is an abuse of process, and courts may grant immunity to addicts under Section 64-A via inherent powers.
Headnote:(A) NDPS Act - Immunity from Prosecution - Section 64-A - Grant of immunity to addicts volunteering for treatment is intended for those not involved in peddling or sale of drugs; in the absence of specified authority or procedure in the Act, the High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings to grant such immunity based on facts and circumstances. (Para 7, 8)
(B) Evidence - Confessional Statements - Section 67 NDPS Act - Statements recorded under Section 67 are inadmissible in evidence; where the prosecution relies solely on co-accused confessions without independent material evidence or seizure of contraband from the accused, continuation of proceedings constitutes an abuse of process of law. (Para 8, 9)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, based solely on confessional statements of co-accused without seizure of contraband, should be quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued false implication based on co-accused confessions; State contended issues require full trial. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Confessions under Section 67 NDPS Act inadmissible per Tofan Singh; no material against petitioners except co-accused statements. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can grant immunity to addicts under Section 64-A NDPS Act. (Para 8 )
5. Criminal petition allowed; proceedings against accused 2 and 3 quashed. (Para 10 )
6. Is a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act admissible as evidence?
No, the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh held such confessions are inadmissible in evidence. (Para 8 )
7. Can a court grant immunity from prosecution to addicts under Section 64-A of the NDPS Act?
Yes, the court under inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can grant immunity from prosecution to addicts volunteering for treatment. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
8. Can proceedings be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the only evidence is a co-accused's confession?
Yes, where the only material against accused is inadmissible confessions of co-accused, continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process. (Para 8 , 9 )
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.
::2::
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
::3::
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:
::4::
“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 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
