Failure to comply with mandatory NDPS search safeguards justifies quashing proceedings.

On 5 July 2025, police intercepted a Toyota Innova at a check post after receiving information about the transportation of ganja and seized 79 grams from a black bag inside the vehicle.

The petitioners were arrested, and a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27(b) of the NDPS Act.

They sought to quash the proceedings, alleging non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50; they also contended that the seized quantity was small.

The State opposed the petition, asserting that sufficient material implicated the petitioners.

1. Whether the alleged failure to comply with the mandatory safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act warranted quashing the proceedings against the petitioners

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS to quash the pending criminal proceedings

Section 50 of the NDPS Act requires an empowered officer, before searching a person, to inform that person of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; the safeguard is mandatory, and failure to inform the suspect may render the recovery suspect.

Relying on Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609, Arif Khan alias Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 18 SCC 380, and Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262, the Court stated that Section 50 compliance is mandatory and that the prosecution bears the burden of establishing compliance.

The Court also treated Sections 42 and 50 as mandatory provisions whose violation could justify intervention to prevent abuse of process.

The Court found that the material showed the seizure of 79 grams of ganja but that the Investigating Officer had not complied with Section 50.

Applying the cited authorities, it treated the failure to observe the statutory safeguards as a serious violation and concluded that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of process and result in a miscarriage of justice.

Although the petitioners also relied on the small quantity seized, the Court’s stated basis for its decision was non-compliance with the statutory provisions.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.