Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Tamil Nadu, Single Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri, quashed the NDPS prosecution against an accused who was alleged to have possessed a small quantity of ganja recovered from his shirt pocket, holding that the record did not prima facie show compliance with the safeguards governing a personal search. The Court observed that a shirt pocket, being part of the clothing worn on the body, is inseparable from the person, and a recovery from it attracts the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which operate as a statutory assurance of fairness and transparency in search. The Court also noted the absence of a demonstrated condonation of delay despite the limitation objection and directed that any pending coercive process against the accused be recalled.

The petitioner approached the Madras High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction to challenge the continuation of an NDPS prosecution arising from a police case in which he was implicated as an accused.

Also Read: Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Cardiologist’s Bail In Alleged Forced Angioplasty PMJAY Govt Funds Claim Case

According to the prosecution version reflected in the FIR and final report, on September 2, 2023, a police officer received secret information that certain persons were in possession of ganja at the place of occurrence. A police team proceeded to the spot, found three persons, and conducted a search. It was alleged that each was found with 10 grams of ganja kept in a shirt pocket. The police also recorded a confession from one accused who was a juvenile, and the case against the juvenile was split up and sent to the Juvenile Justice Board; the remaining accused were shown separately in the split-up final report.

The petitioner contended that the prosecution was barred by limitation and that the recovery from a shirt pocket amounted to a personal search requiring Section 50 compliance, including individualised intimation and consent; he also alleged non-compliance with Section 42 regarding secret information and objected to reliance on the juvenile’s confession. The prosecution responded that the recovery was supported by mahazar, Section 50 issues were evidentiary, chemical analysis had been done, and limitation raised disputed questions.

The Court recorded the nature of the alleged recovery and its implication for Section 50 in the following terms: “The contraband was found in the shirt pocket of the petitioner.” “A shirt pocket is inseparable from the clothing worn on the body at the relevant moment.” “On the prosecution’s own showing, the recovery is from the person of the accused.” “When recovery is from the person, Section 50 NDPS Act is not a ritual.” “It is a statutory safeguard meant to assure transparency and to instill confidence in the fairness of the search.”

On the material placed regarding intimation/consent, the Court stated: “In the present case, what is projected is a joint consent/common form.” “This Court is not persuaded that a joint, omnibus paper without demonstrable individual intimation, answers the statutory command, especially when the prosecution rests on the personal search itself.” It further noted: “Importantly, if the officer’s stand is that immediate search was necessary without taking the person to the nearest Gazetted Officer/Magistrate, then the statute itself provides a narrow window under Section 50(5), but it is coupled with a mandatory duty under Section 50(6) to record reasons and forward them within the stipulated time.” “The petitioner’s grievance is that such statutory record is absent.”

On whether the accused should be compelled to undergo trial in the circumstances presented, the Court observed: “At this stage, the Court is not expected to embark upon a roving enquiry.” “However, where the case is founded on personal search and the record placed does not prima facie exhibit compliance with the heart of Section 50, the prosecution cannot insist that the accused must undergo a full-fledged trial merely to demonstrate an omission apparent at inception.” It also stated: “This Court is conscious of the prosecutorial argument that non-compliance may affect conviction rather than the trial.” “That proposition cannot be applied as a blanket rule to every fact situation.” “Where the prosecution is substantially and singularly anchored in a personal search recovery, and the record does not prima facie show the statutory safeguards, compelling the accused to face trial would itself become the prejudice.”

On limitation, the Court recorded the relevant dates and absence of condonation material: “In the present case, the occurrence is 02.09.2023.” “The final report is stated to have been filed and cognizance taken only on 29.09.2025.” “The record, as placed, does not disclose that the prosecution moved for extension/condonation by invoking Section 473 Cr.P.C., 1973, (or its corresponding provision under BNSS) nor does it show a reasoned order condoning delay.”

Also Read: High Courts Must Avoid Routine Early-Disposal Directions And Assess Urgency; Madras High Court

On the use of the juvenile’s confession against the petitioner, the Court stated: “In the absence of a joint trial, the confession recorded in the split-up proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board cannot, in law, be relied upon or used against the petitioner.” “Any reliance on such confession would be wholly impermissible and contrary to the settled legal position governing Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”

The Court held: “In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The proceedings in S.T.C.No.1488 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai, arising out of Crime No.346 of 2023, for offences under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act, are quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.”

“Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. If any coercive process is pending against the petitioner in the said S.T.C., the same shall stand recalled insofar as the petitioner is concerned.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr.G.Karuppasamypandiyan
For the Respondents: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Case Title: Pradeep Rajan Vs. State of Tamilnadu
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22581 of 2025
Bench: Justice L.Victoria Gowri