Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
Nasu Seikh – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.11907 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act
Act Referred
Headnote
(C), 35 and 50 - Constitution of India - Article 22 - Possession of contraband - Bail - Mandatory compliance with search rights - Whether written notice in an unfamiliar language vitiates recovery - The requirement of informing an accused of their right to be searched by a gazetted officer is mandatory but does not demand a specific written format; oral communication of such rights through a translator in a language understood by the accused constitutes substantial legal compliance. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Aggregation of contraband - When multiple accused are intercepted together during a search operation, their joint presence raises a presumption of a meeting of minds, permitting the aggregation of individual quantities of contraband to determine whether the total amount constitutes a 'commercial quantity'. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was apprehended alongside another individual during a coordinated police operation, with both found in possession of individual quantities of contraband. The petitioner challenged the recovery on the grounds that the mandatory search notice was provided in a language he did not understand and argued that his individual possession did not reach the threshold of a 'commercial quantity', thereby denying the legal basis for the stringent charges filed.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the procedural objection regarding the search notice was invalid because evidence established the petitioner was adequately informed of his statutory rights through a translator. Furthermore, the court held that the simultaneous presence of the suspects indicated a shared intent, justifying the aggregation of all recovered contraband for the purpose of determining the severity of the offense.
Issues: The main issues were whether informing a suspect of search rights in a language they understand via a translator satisfies procedural mandates, and whether possession amounts seized from multiple individuals can be combined to reach a commercial quantity threshold.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that statutory rights regarding search procedures are fulfilled if the suspect is effectively made aware of those rights, regardless of the absence of a written document in a specific language. Moreover, joint presence during an interception supports the aggregation of seized quantities to define the nature of the offense based on the total scale of the contraband.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.10.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), r/w 20(b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’ for short) in C.C.No.1915 of 2025 on the file of the learned I Additional Special Judge, NDPS and EC Act, Chennai in connection with Crime No.159 of 2025 on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 09.10.2025, based on specific information, the respondent police proceeded to a place near Ambattur Railway Station at about 6.00 a.m. and apprehended two accused. During the search, 23 kgs of Ganja was allegedly recovered, of which 12 kgs was recovered from the petitioner/A1 and 11 kgs from A2. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there are two accused in the present case and that the petitioner is arrayed as A1. According to him, only 12 kgs of Ganja was allegedly recovered from the petitioner, whereas 11 kgs was recovered from A2. Therefore, the recovery attributable to the petitioner is only an intermediate quantity. It is his further contention that the grounds of arrest are bereft of necessary particulars. He would also contend that the mandatory requirement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been duly complied with, inasmuch as the notice issued under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was in the Tamil language, whereas the petitioner is a native of West Bengal and is not conversant with Tamil. It is his further submission that there are no materials available to invoke the theory of conspiracy. Hence, he prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
4. The said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and would contend that, at the time of interception, both the accused were found together and, during the search, a total quantity of 23 kgs of Ganja was recovered from them. He would further submit that the mandatory requirement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been duly complied with. It is also the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the arrest of the petitioner was effected prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500. Therefore, even assuming that there were any lapses in the grounds of arrest, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit therefrom, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra) has held that the law relating to the furnishing of grounds of arrest would operate prospectively. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present bail petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
6. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the arrest of the petitioner was effected prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra). Therefore, the defence raised by the petitioner with regard to the alleged defects in the grounds of arrest cannot be pressed into service in respect of an arrest effected prior to the said judgment. In this regard, it is appropriate to extract paragraph 68 of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra), which reads as follows:-
“68. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view, would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth.”
7. Coming to the mandatory requirement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied up
