Recovery From Shirt Pocket Is 'Personal Search'; Non-Compliance With Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Prosecution: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that when a recovery under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act is made from the shirt pocket of the accused, it would be seen as a personal search, and compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 50 of the Act would be mandatory during such a search."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," the court noted. Highlighting the importance of following statutory procedure under the Act, Justice Victoria Gowri noted that NDPS prosecutions are not ordinary and the statutory safeguards are not empty formalities but minimum assurance to ensure that the powers were exercised responsibly and legally. “NDPS prosecutions are not ordinary prosecutions. The statute is stringent because the menace is grave. Precisely for that reason, the safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 are not empty formalities, they are the minimum assurance that the extraordinary power of search and seizure is exercised with responsibility and legality. Compliance is the backbone of credibility,” the court said. The court was hearing a plea by a law student seeking to quash the chargesheet filed against him in an NDPS case. The allegation against him was that he was found in possession of 10 grams of Ganja in his shirt pocket. The prosecution argued that in September 2, 2023, the police officer received secret information that certain persons were in possession of Ganja. Later, the officer, along with other police personnel, proceeded to the spot and found three persons and conducted search. As per the prosecution case, each of the individual was found in possession of 10 grams of Ganja, kept in their shirt pockets. The confession was obtained from first accused, who was a juvenile and the case against him was split up. The petitioner argued that the prosecution was barred by limitation under Section 468(2)(b) CrPC/Section 514 (2)(b) BNSS as the final report/cognisance was beyond the limitation period without recourse to Section 473 CrPC/Section 515 BNSS. The petitioner also argued that the search was a personal search and thus compliance to Section 50 NDPS was mandatory. The petitioner argued that there was no proper intimation and consent and no compliance with Section 50(5) and Section 50(6) of the Act. Among other grounds it was also argued that the informant and investigative officer could not be the same person, the confession of juvenile could not be used against the petitioner as his case was split up, and at best the petitioner could only be considered a customer/consumer as the case did not disclose any trafficking or commerciality. On the other hand, the State argued that the contraband involved was Ganja and the quantity would be material only for grant of bail and not for quashing. The State submitted that compliance with Section 50 was a matter of evidence and any alleged violation could be tested only in trial. The court noted that in the present case, the recovery was from the shirt pocket of the petitioner which was inseparable from the clothing worn on the body at the relevant moment. The court noted that even as per the prosecution version, the recovery was from the person of the accused for which compliance under Section 50 was mandatory. The court observed that the procedure under Section 50 as not ritual but a statutory safeguard meant to assure transparency and to instill confidence in the fairness of the search. In the present case, the court noted that the joint consent could not be seen as an individual intimation, which was mandatory under the Act. The court also noted that no reasons were recorded showing that the search had to be immediate search. The court thus noted that when the records did not show compliance with the statutory safeguards, compelling the accused to face trial would be prejudicial.Thus, the court was inclined to quash the case against the petitioner. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamypandiyan Counsel for Respondents: Mr. B. Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Case Title: Pradeep Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 57 Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22581 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Recovery From Shirt Pocket Is 'Personal Search'; Non-Compliance With Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Prosecution: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags