CRL OP(MD)/19064/2026 of Aparajith Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A3 in Crime No.276 of 2026, on the file of the first respondent police, under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking to quash the First Information Report registered on 04.08.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act').

2. The case of the prosecution, as could be gathered from the FIR, is that on 04.08.2026, the respondent police, on receipt of prior secret information, made an entry to that effect in the daily register at 4.20 p.m. and proceeded to the Pallapatti check post on the Dindigul - Madurai National Highway. On noticing the police party, three persons attempted to flee from the spot, whereupon they were surrounded and secured by the respondent police.

3. It is further alleged that the persons so secured were later identified as A1 to A3. Thereafter, at about 05.10 p.m., the respondent police, purporting to comply with Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, obtained a letter of consent from each of them for conducting a personal search. The said consent letters were attested by two police witnesses and copies thereof were furnished to the accused. On such personal search, small packets of contraband were found on each of them. After ascertaining that the substance was ganja, the same was weighed and each packet was found to contain 20 grams of ganja. The contraband was seized and sealed at 05.45 p.m. and the accused were arrested at 06.40 p.m., after being informed of the grounds of their arrest.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that A2 and A3 are admittedly minors and, therefore, the respondent police could not have obtained their consent, either orally or in writing. He would further contend that, even if such consent had been obtained, a consent procured by the police officials themselves for conducting a personal search is not valid in the eye of law, and that the accused ought to have been taken before the nearest Magistrate or Gazetted Officer for the purpose of such search. According to the learned Senior Counsel, once the search stands vitiated, the consequential seizure cannot be relied upon and no conviction can be recorded on the basis of such illegal search and seizure.

5. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1999) 6 SCC 172, State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, particularly paragraph Nos.26, 54 and 55 thereof. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 12 SCC 207, State of Delhi Vs. Ram Avtar @ Rama, particularly paragraph Nos.12, 32 and 35 thereof.

6. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that when the personal search conducted by the Investigating Officer is in clear violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the same cannot be relied upon for any purpose whatsoever, and such a defect cannot be cured either in the course of investigation or at the time of filing the final report. When the defect goes to the root of the matter and is incurable, no useful purpose would be served in subjecting the petitioners to the ordeal of a trial. On these grounds, he prayed for quashing of the FIR.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that all the accused were found in possession of contraband, namely, A1 and A2 with 20 grams each and A3 with 10 grams. A written communication, as contemplated under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, was furnished to each of the accused separately, and all of them, having understood the contents thereof, affixed their signatures, thereby consenting to the police officials conducting a personal search on them. It is further submitted that A2 and A3 were aged 17 years at the relevant point of time and cannot be said to be of such tender age as to be incapable of understanding that they were in conscious possession of the contraband. Having gone through the written communication and being satisfied, they expressed their consent by signing the form permitting the investigating agency to search their persons. The learned Government Advocate would lastly contend that, even assuming that there was any irregularity in the search or seizure, the same cannot be a ground to quash the FIR, particularly when the investigation is at a nascent stage.

8. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

9. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the petitioners are alleged to have been found in possession of contraband, which was seized pursuant to a personal search conducted on the persons of A1 to A3. Therefore, there can be no dispute that Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act is attracted to the facts of the present case.

10. It is seen that a communication in a printed format was placed before each of the accused, and each of them has independently signed the same, signifying consent. Whether the said communication was in strict conformity with Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act is a matter which cannot be adjudicated at this stage, particularly when the investigation is still at a nascent stage.

11. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the petitioners 2 and 3 are minors even according to the FIR and hence, the consent stated to have been obtained from them is invalid in the eye of law. A reading of both the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners would make it clear that the FIR is sought to be assailed solely on the ground of violation of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act.

12. In such circumstances, the only question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether an alleged violation of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act would constitute a ground for quashing the FIR or the final report.

13. The issue is no longer res integra. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1999) 6 SCC 172, State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, in paragraph Nos.57(3) and 57(5), has held as follows:- “3) That a search made by an empowered officer, on prior information, without informing the person of his right that if he so requires, he shall be taken before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate for search and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from his person, during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.

(5) That whether or not the safeguards provided in Section 50 have been duly observed would have to be determined by the court on the basis of the evidence led at the trial. Finding on that issue, one way or the other, would be relevant for recording an order of conviction or acquittal. Without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to establish, at the trial, that the provisions of Section 50 and, particularly, the safeguards provided therein were duly complied with, it would not be permissible to cut short a criminal trial.”

14. Insofar as the decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel in (2011) 12 SCC 207, State of Delhi Vs. Ram Avtar @ Rama is concerned, a careful reading of the facts of that case would reveal that the question of compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court only after the conviction recorded by the trial Court had been reversed by the High Court. Likewise, in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262, Ranjan Kumar Chadha Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and 2026 SCC OnLine SC 376, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Surat Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider the said issue only after a full-fledged trial. Hence, the said decisions do not advance the case of the petitioners at this stage.

15. A conjoint reading of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1999) 6 SCC 172 and the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262 would make it clear that a plea of non-conformity with Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act in the conduct of a personal search cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR or the final report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that such an irregularity in the search may not vitiate the trial; it would only render the recovery of the contraband suspect and

vitiate the conviction and sentence of the accused, and that too only where the conviction has been recorded solely on the basis of the possession of the contraband recovered from his person in a search conducted in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that whether or not the safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been duly complied with is a matter to be determined on the basis of the evidence let in at the trial, and that it would not be permissible to cut short a criminal trial on the ground of alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to establish such compliance at the trial.

17. In view of the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered view that any alleged defect, infirmity or violation in the conduct of search and seizure without following Section 50 of the NDPS Act can only be raised and considered before the trial Court, and the same cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR or the final report. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined only to the disposal of this petition. The trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the defences available to them before the trial Court.

Conclusion:-

18. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in this Criminal Original Petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 30-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RJR

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Ammayanaickanur Police Station, Dindigul District.

2. The Sub Inspector Of Police, Ammayanaickanur Police Station, Ammayanaickanur, Dindigul District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. RJR Pre-delivery order made in CRL OP(MD) No. 19064 of 2026 30-10-2026