JUDGMENT & ORDER : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dugmar Kamduk and Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. The present Crl.Rev.P/5/2024 is filed under Section 397 r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for setting aside and quashing of the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned District & Session Judge, Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh in PSG SC (NDPS) Case No. 48/23 Corresponding to Yingkiong Police Station Case No. 18/2022 under Section 20(b) (ii) A of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dugmar Kamduk appearing for the petitioner/accused states that accused was arrested on 03.06.2022, during a raid to arrest another person namely, Shri. Katem Libang. While in search of the said Shri. Katem Libang at forest colony, Yingkoing, the police team had mistakenly entered into the residence of the petitioner/accused and had found the petitioner consuming Ganja and recovered small quantity of Ganja from his room. Accordingly, a written FIR dated 03.06.2022 was lodged against the petitioner alleging that he was found consuming Ganja in his residence and that small quantity of Ganja was recovered from his possession. And on the basis of the said FIR, a case was registered against him being Yingkiong PS Case No. 18/2022 under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner was in custody for 28 days and thereafter, he himself voluntarily sought to undergo medical treatment for De-addiction at a Rehabilitation Centre and as such he was granted bail by the Special Judge (NDPS), Pasighat, East Siang District, in order to enable him to undergo medical treatment for De-addiction from a Rehabilitation Centre. 5. The learned Special Judge (NDPS), Pasighat, East Siang District, by order dated 30.06.2022 allowed the petitioner to go on interim bail on the condition that he shall be admitted in a Rehabilitation Centre within a period of one week and further directed to submit the admission and status report from the Rehabilitation Centre. 6. It is also stated that after being released on interim bail the petitioner was immediately admitted at Shalom Rapha Foundation, Drug Addiction and Rehabilitation Centre, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley District and the admission receipt of the same was placed before the Special Judge (NDPS), Pasighat. 6. It is also stated that after being released on interim bail the petitioner was immediately admitted at Shalom Rapha Foundation, Drug Addiction and Rehabilitation Centre, Roing, Lower Dibang Valley District and the admission receipt of the same was placed before the Special Judge (NDPS), Pasighat. Accordingly, on 28.07.2022 the Special Judge (NDPS), Pasighat, by order dated 30.06.2022, made the interim bail absolute. It is further submitted that the petitioner successfully completed four months course of his treatment at the Rehabilitation Centre and he was discharged from the Rehabilitation Centre on 03.11.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner got himself admitted at Himalayan University, Itanagar, and at present, he is pursuing M.A. in Political Science. 7. At this juncture, the case against the petitioner was investigated and a charge-sheet bearing No. 2/2023 under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act was filed on 26.04.2023 in connection with Yingkiong PS Case No. 18/2022. Thereafter, the Special Judge NDPS, Pasighat, issued summon to the petitioner for appearance on 20.10.2023. 8. The petitioner therefore filed an I.A. Crl. No. 33/2023 before the Special Judge NDPS, Pasighat, for grant of immunity from prosecution under provision of Section 64 A of the NDPS Act. And the matter was taken up on 23.02.2024 whereby, the Special Judge NDPS, Pasighat, rejected the said I.A.33/2023, and on the same day charge was framed against the petitioner and he was convicted and sentenced with fine of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited within one month. And with a further direction that upon delay of payment he shall be imprisoned for another 3 months. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused therefore submits that the learned Special Judge should have considered his prayer for immunity under Section 64 A of the NDPS Act, before consideration of charge. Learned counsel also submits that the intention of the legislature to incorporate Section 64 Act of the NDPS Act is to empower the Court to grant immunity to Drug Addicts, who have volunteered to undergo treatment for de-addiction. Therefore, the learned Special Court had committed an error in holding that Section 64A NDPS does not empower the Court to grant immunity to an Addict volunteering for treatment. 10 . Therefore, the learned Special Court had committed an error in holding that Section 64A NDPS does not empower the Court to grant immunity to an Addict volunteering for treatment. 10 . Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner will not be able to apply for any Government jobs in future as his conviction will affect his future job opportunities, whereas, the petitioner is now completely reformed after completing four months of de-addiction treatment and he is now pursuing M.A. at Himalayan University Itanagar. 11 . Learned counsel therefore, submits that the petitioner/ accused is entitled to be granted immunity under the provision of Section 64A of the NDPS Act as he was a Drug Addict and he had voluntarily gone to the de-addiction Centre and had under gone treatment successfully for four months. It is therefore prayed that the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Pasighat, in PSG SC (NDPS) Case No. 48/2023 may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be granted immunity under the provision of Section 64A NDPS Act by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. 12 . Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to support his submission has placed reliance on the case of: · VEGESNA CHAITANYA KUMAR VEGESHNA CHAITANYA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELENGANA AND ANOTHER of the Telengana High Court in Criminal Petition No. 233 of 2023 Decided on 14-03-2023, at paragraph- 6, 7& 8. · Jasbir Singh Vs. Vipin Kumar Jaggi & Ors reported in 2001(6) Supreme 135 /(2001) SCC (Cri) 1525, at paragraph 26 and · Mr Vaibhav Gupta Vs. Union Of India by the Karnataka High Court in WP(C) 11193 of 2021 at paragraph, 7, 8 & 9. 13 . Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. T. Ete, appearing for the State respondent states that the present petition has been filed under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, and therefore, he has submitted that the petition has been filed under the wrong provision of law. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the scope of revision under Section 397 Cr.PC is to set right a defect or an error of jurisdiction in the decision of the Trial Court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the scope of revision under Section 397 Cr.PC is to set right a defect or an error of jurisdiction in the decision of the Trial Court. He has also submitted that no appeal can be filed when the accused pleads guilty as per Section 375 of the Cr.PC, however, if the accused has not pleaded guilty of his own free will and if the elements for the offence with which he had been charged with has not been made out on examination of the facts, then there would be no bar in entertaining an appeal even from a conviction on plea of guilt. 14 . Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the case of State of Kerala Vs. Gopinatha Pillai reported in 1980 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 39 (KER.) to support his contentions that an appeal would be maintainable in this present case even if the accused had pleaded guilty as the accused was not fully aware of the charges against him and the implications of pleading guilty. However, he has fairly submitted that under Section 401(5) of the Cr.PC, this Court has the power to convert the present revision petition into an appeal and deal with the same accordingly. The submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is based on the fact that the present petitioner/accused has already been convicted and sentenced and therefore, this hurdle has to be dealt with by petitioner/accused before raising the plea for immunity under Section 64A of the NDPS Act. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore fairly submits that the present revision petitioner may be treated as an appeal and this Court may deal with the same, accordingly. 15. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor. It is a fact that Section 64A of the NDPS Act provides immunity from prosecution for Drug Addicts who voluntarily seek Rehabilitation emphasizing the importance of treatment over punishment. The petitioner/accused was apprehended for consumption of Ganja and about 6.36 grams of Ganja was recovered and seized from his possession. It is not disputed that the quantity of Ganja recovered from the petitioner is of small quantity and accordingly, he has been rightly charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner/accused was apprehended for consumption of Ganja and about 6.36 grams of Ganja was recovered and seized from his possession. It is not disputed that the quantity of Ganja recovered from the petitioner is of small quantity and accordingly, he has been rightly charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. It is also not disputed that he was a Drug Addict and accordingly, the learned Trial Court has released the petitioner/accused on bail in order to undergo De-addiction/rehabilitation. While, not seriously contesting the case of the petitioner/accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn the attention of this Court to the provision of law under which the present petition has been filed. 16. It is also not a disputed fact that the petitioner was admitted for de- addiction at Shalom Rapha Rehabilitation Centre on 02.07.2022 and he was discharged after 118 days of treatment at the de-addiction and Rehabilitation Centre. It is therefore, an admitted fact that the petitioner/accused has undergone proper treatment and had successfully completed the treatment and he has also returned to normal life by getting enrolled at Himalayan University, Itanagar, and at present he is pursuing M.A. in Political Science. 17. It is seen that the petitioner is charged under Section 20 (b) (ii)(A) NDPS Act, for the seizure of small quantity of cannabis/ganja and the petitioner is not a drug dealer/ trafficker/peddler, but he is a drug addict. The documents submitted in the petition clearly shows that the petitioner has under gone the required treatment for addiction for a period of 118 days. Section 64A of the NDPS Act provides as follows: “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.” 18. The Telengana High Court in the case of VEGESNA CHAITANYA KUMAR VEGESHNA CHAITANYA KUMAR Vs. The Telengana High Court in the case of VEGESNA CHAITANYA KUMAR VEGESHNA CHAITANYA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELENGANA AND ANOTHER, (Supra), had also allowed the invoking of Section 64A NDPS to the petitioner who had been prosecuted for consumption of Narcotics Drugs and who had under gone treatment for de-addiction and also counseling and other therapy session. A similar view was taken by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Vaibhav Gupta vs Union Of India (Supra), wherein, the court stated that it is not only the consumer of small quantity who can claim immunity, but Section 64A means that if the addict has undergone treatment for de-addiction, he cannot be prosecuted at all. The High Court of Karnataka in the Vaibhav case (Supra) allowed the invoking of Section 64A NDPS, by considering the decision of Madras High Court in Sanjiv Bhatnagar vs State, Criminal Revision Case No. 1278/2015 where it was observed that: “11. Given the attendant facts and circumstances, the prosecution in the instant case may at best be able to make out an offence under Section 27 of NDPS Act The question that arises for consideration would be whether the accused should be required to undergo trial towards his conviction for offence under Section 27 of NDPS Act and would he only thereafter be entitled to seek the benefit of Section 64(A) of NDPS Act. Simply put, Section 64(A) of NDPS Act is one intended to rid an user of drugs from the evil thereof and towards his rehabilitation, the end object being to facilitate a life free of drugs. This Court is of the view that when the material gathered by the prosecution itself informs the petitioner to be an user of drugs and not in too large a quantity the provision for rehabilitation should be given effect to at the earliest. It is to be noted that in offence under Section 27 of NDPS Act, no distinction is made between small and commercial quantity. “ 19. This Court has also taken note of submission of the learned Additional P.P. that the present petition has been filed under the wrong provision of law, and that this Court may treat the present revision as an appeal against the order of the learned Special Judges NDPS, Pasighat. “ 19. This Court has also taken note of submission of the learned Additional P.P. that the present petition has been filed under the wrong provision of law, and that this Court may treat the present revision as an appeal against the order of the learned Special Judges NDPS, Pasighat. On going through the cause title, it is seen that the present petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 482 of the Cr.PC, 1973. 20. In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vrs State of Uttaranchal & ors, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 the hon’ble apex court stated: “23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 24. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute”. 21. Therefore, Section 482 casts a duty on the court to advance the interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty cast upon this court that the discretion under section 482 CRPC is exercised in the present case to ensure that a young boy of 24 years who was an addict has now reformed himself and has resumed his education, may live a life as a good citizen and find suitable employment. The power of this Court under Section 482 can be used to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. No doubt the power under Section 482 Cr.PC, has to be exercised sparingly and with caution. The power of this Court under Section 482 can be used to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. No doubt the power under Section 482 Cr.PC, has to be exercised sparingly and with caution. However, the inherent power can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matter. In the present case also it is the view of this court that power under Section 482 Cr.PC can be exercised even though the petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 482 Cr.PC specially, in a case like this where the accused is a young boy who was a drug addict, pursuing M.A. after reforming himself. 22. In view of the above discussion, this Court considering the facts and circumstances under which the petitioner was arrested, finds that the petitioner is entitled to claim immunity under the provision of Section 64A of the NDPS Act, and therefore, the (i) order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS, Pasighat, (ii) the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS, Act, and (iii) the fine sentence of Rs. 5000/- are quashed and set aside, in respect of the instant petitioner, Mr. Kiri Ori. 23 . Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed and stands disposed of.