Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and failure to individually inform accused of their rights vitiates the search and conviction.

12.03.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

1. Raja Anand

2. Hariharan ..Appellants Vs.

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Chennai, Crime No. 86 of 2019. ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 07.07.2022 passed in C.C. No. 195 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under NDPS Act, Chennai.

For Appellants :: Mr.C.S.S. Pillai for A1 For Respondent :: Mr. Raja Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor J U D G M E N T The criminal appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

07.07.2022 passed in C.C. No. 195 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under NDPS Act, Chennai. The Trial Court convicted each one of the appellants under Section 8(c) r/w 22(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- carrying a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

2.(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent received secret information stating that the appellants were in possession of MDMA tablets and LSD stamps for the purpose of sale and personal consumption; that based on secret information, P.W.1, who was the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police Station, went to the place of occurrence, which is a private hotel and at about 23.00hrs, on 23.08.2019, on identification by the secret informant, the appellants were apprehended at about 12.30a.m. on 24.08.2019 at the bar of the hotel; that after complying with the mandatory requirement under Section 50 of NDPS Act, the appellants were searched; that the 1^st appellant was found in possession of 3.937 gms of MDMA tablets and the 2^nd appellant was found in possession of LSD stamps (2 Nos.) weighing 0.040gms; that thereafter, P.W.1 registered the FIR and on his report under Section 57 of NDPS Act, P.W.4 took up the investigation and filed the final report for the offences under Sections 8(c)r/w 22(b) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of NDPS Act.

2(ii). The prosecution had examined four witnesses as P.W.s

1 to 4 and marked Exs. P1 to P15 and M.O.s 1 and 2. The appellants neither examined any witness nor marked any document. The trial Court, based on oral and documentary evidence adduced, convicted the appellants under Section 8(c) r/w 22(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced them as aforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the

2^nd appellant is no more, which fact is confirmed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and he has also produced the death certificate of the 2^nd appellant dated 28.07.2025. Hence, the appeal filed by the 2^nd appellant is dismissed as abated.

4. Learned counsel for the 1^st appellant would submit that the prosecution had failed to prove the seizure in the manner known to law; that the mandatory requirement of informing the appellants of their right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer under Section 50 of NDPS Act had not been complied with; that the contraband was sent to forensic lab for analysis after a delay of 14 days contrary to the provisions of the Act and no evidence was collected by the prosecution to prove that the possession was for the purpose of sale.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, would submit that both the appellants were apprised of their right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer and after understanding the consequence, they had agreed to be searched by P.W.1; that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants and hence, the joint notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act cannot vitiate the seizure and the conviction of the appellants. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further