The NDPS crime is far from victimless, as drug use harms both individuals and society at large in various ways. Recognizing this, the legislature aims to deter the criminalization of evidence-based drug dependents and promote public safety while guarding against criminal recidivism. The NDPS law regime provides avenues for offenders to seek immunity from prosecution by undergoing treatment. Courts have the authority to release offenders for drug treatment and rehabilitation in government institutions established per Section 71 of the NDPS Act. The government can develop centres and set norms to identify and rehabilitate addicts. In NDPS Court, a significant portion of the accused hails from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, primarily young individuals. Differentiating between hardcore traffickers and street peddlers, who often operate in the shadows, can be challenging. Section 64 of the NDPS Act allows the government to tender immunity to those willing to provide complete disclosures about contraventions. This can help identify and dismantle the drug network. Provisions within the NDPS Act allow accused individuals charged under Section 27 for drug consumption to seek immunity from prosecution under Section 64 A and volunteer for treatment. Courts have also interpreted Section 64 A to apply to small quantities and larger quantities of drugs. Additionally, Section 39 of the Act permits judges to release offenders who opt for treatment in government institutions and are found guilty of offences relating to Section 27 of the Act. The NDPS law lacks the automatic presumption of innocence in ordinary criminal jurisprudence. Here, the burden of proof shifts upon the accused, necessitating them to justify the possession of seized drugs. Courts have ruled that arresting officers are not obligated to consider whether the accused is an addict or trafficker, as this would disrupt the normal investigation process. Consequently, accused individuals claiming addiction must prove their status, shifting the onus onto them. Courts typically require evidence demonstrating the intended use of seized drugs for consumption to classify the accused as drug dependents. This scenario presents challenges for accused individuals, as volunteering for treatment may be perceived as an admission of guilt. Additionally, proving addiction status can be arduous.