In a significant judgment reinforcing the protection of civil liberties against procedural lapses, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a criminal case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act filed against a law student. The court ruled that a search of a person’s shirt pocket constitutes a "personal search," making strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandatory.

Justice Victoria Gowri, while presiding over the matter, emphasized that the stringent nature of the NDPS Act requires equally stringent adherence to legal safeguards. The court observed that these safeguards are not mere "rituals" or "empty formalities" but are the "backbone of credibility" in drug-related prosecutions.

The case originated on September 2, 2023, when police officials received "secret information" regarding individuals in possession of Ganja (cannabis). Acting on this tip, a police team conducted a raid and apprehended three individuals, including the petitioner, Pradeep Rajan, who was a law student at the time.

According to the prosecution, the police recovered 10 grams of Ganja from the shirt pocket of the petitioner. A chargesheet was subsequently filed, and the student was forced to face trial. Seeking to protect his future and career in the legal profession, the student moved the High Court to quash the proceedings, arguing that the entire investigation was riddled with legal illegalities.

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. G. Karuppasamypandiyan, raised several critical points:

Section 50 Non-Compliance: It was argued that since the contraband was allegedly found in the student’s shirt pocket, it was a "search of a person." Under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, an officer must inform the accused of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
Joint Consent vs. Individual Intimation: The defense pointed out that the police supposedly obtained "joint consent" from the accused persons instead of individual intimations, which is a violation of settled law.
Limitation Period: The petitioner argued that the chargesheet was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Status as Consumer: It was further argued that even if the allegations were true, 10 grams is a "small quantity," and there was no evidence of trafficking or commercial intent.

The State, represented by Government Advocate Mr. B. Thanga Aravindh, countered that the quantity of the drug is a matter of trial and that procedural compliance should be tested during the evidence stage rather than at the quashing stage.

The core of the High Court’s ruling focused on the definition of a personal search. Justice Victoria Gowri noted that a shirt pocket is "inseparable from the clothing worn on the body at the relevant moment."

The Court held:

"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 further explained that because the NDPS Act carries very heavy penalties and a strict regime, the law provides built-in safeguards to prevent the planting of evidence or harassment. If the police fail to follow these "minimum assurances," the entire prosecution becomes vitiated (legally invalid).

The Court highlighted that NDPS prosecutions are not "ordinary prosecutions." The grave nature of drug-related crimes is exactly why the law demands high standards from the police.

"The statute is stringent because the menace is grave. Precisely for that reason, the safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 are not empty formalities... Compliance is the backbone of credibility," the judge remarked.

In this specific case, the Court found that:

There was no evidence of individual intimation of rights to the student.
The records did not show any urgent reason for bypassing the requirement of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.
Forcing a law student to undergo a full trial when the foundation of the case (the search) was legally flawed would be highly prejudicial.

Concluding that the procedural violations were fatal to the prosecution's case, the Madras High Court allowed the petition and quashed the chargesheet against the law student. The ruling serves as a vital reminder to law enforcement agencies that while the fight against drugs is essential, it cannot come at the cost of bypassing the rule of law.

Case Title: Pradeep Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22581 of 2025