Compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act is Satisfied by Oral Communication via Translator

On 09.10.2025, the respondent police intercepted the petitioner (A1) and another accused (A2) near Ambattur Railway Station. A search resulted in the recovery of 12 kgs of Ganja from the petitioner and 11 kgs from A2, totaling 23 kgs.

The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that his individual recovery was an "intermediate quantity," that the grounds of arrest were defective under the Mihir Rajesh Shah precedent, and that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was violated because the search notice was in Tamil, a language the West Bengali petitioner did not understand.

1. Whether the law relating to the furnishing of written grounds of arrest as laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra applies retrospectively to arrests made prior to the judgment.

2. Whether issuing a Section 50 NDPS notice in a language unknown to the accused vitiates the recovery if the contents were communicated orally through a translator.

3. Whether the quantities recovered individually from co-accused caught together can be aggregated to constitute a "commercial quantity" under the theory of conspiracy and Section 35 of the NDPS Act.

The court applied Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding the conditions of personal search, as interpreted by the Constitution Bench in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, which held that while compliance is mandatory, the information need not be in writing or a prescribed form as long as the suspect is made aware of their rights.

It relied on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500, which established that the requirement for written grounds of arrest operates prospectively.

Furthermore, the court applied Section 35 of the NDPS Act regarding the presumption of culpable mental state and the principles of aggregation of contraband quantity when accused are found in joint presence.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding defective arrest grounds, noting that the arrest occurred on 09.10.2025, predating the Mihir Rajesh Shah judgment, which explicitly stated its mandate would govern arrests "henceforth".

Regarding Section 50 compliance, the Court reasoned that although the written notice was in Tamil, the Investigating Officer’s statement showed the petitioner was informed of his rights in Hindi via a translator named Aasik; this constituted "substantial compliance" since oral communication is legally permissible.

On the issue of quantity, the Court observed that because both accused were intercepted simultaneously at the same location, their "joint presence prima facie establishes a meeting of minds." Consequently, the quantities (12 kgs and 11 kgs) were aggregated to 23 kgs, surpassing the 20 kg threshold for "commercial quantity," thereby invoking the stringent rigors of the NDPS Act.

It further held that Section 50 was sufficiently complied with through oral translation.

Finally, the Court ruled that the joint apprehension of the accused justified the aggregation of the contraband into a commercial quantity, precluding the grant of bail at this stage.

The Court dismissed the bail petition.