Madras HC Refuses To Quash Ganja FIR Against Man Accused Of Carrying 5 Packets After Co-Accused Allegedly Handed One To Student In Uniform

On 13 March 2025, police acting on information about ganja sales near a maternity hospital apprehended the petitioner and A1. The FIR alleged that A1 handed a packet to a student in school uniform, who fled, and that five small packets of ganja were recovered from the petitioner’s pant pocket. The total seized quantity was 70 grams.

Both accused signed a single consent form after being offered the option of a search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The petitioner, charged under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act and Section 77 of the JJ Act, sought to quash the FIR insofar as it concerned him, arguing, among other things, that the joint consent form violated Section 50 of the NDPS Act and that the FIR did not establish his involvement in supplying a drug to a child.

Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act safeguards a person subjected to a personal search by requiring that they be informed of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

Under State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, non-compliance does not necessarily vitiate the trial, but may render the recovery suspect and affect conviction; compliance is ordinarily determined on the evidence at trial, and the trial should not be cut short without allowing the prosecution to lead evidence.

State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand deprecated joint consent where one accused signed on behalf of another, while Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh stated that each person must be individually informed of the right and exercise or waive it in their own capacity.

Section 77 of the JJ Act criminalises giving, or causing to be given, an intoxicating liquor, narcotic drug or psychotropic substance to a child; whether a recipient is a child and whether the accused caused or participated in the supply are factual questions.

The Court also considered the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, invoked to seek quashing.

The Court found that both accused had signed the consent form, distinguishing Parmanand, where one accused had signed on behalf of the other. Whether the single form nevertheless failed to satisfy Section 50, including in light of Ranjan Kumar Chadha, was a matter for assessment on evidence at trial. Applying Baldev Singh, the Court held that an alleged defect in the search did not warrant terminating the investigation or quashing the FIR at this stage.

The FIR also alleged recovery of ganja from the petitioner’s own pocket, supporting the prosecution’s allegation of possession; the quantity and the admissibility or weight of the accused’s alleged statements were not grounds for quashing at the threshold.

As to Section 77, the alleged coordinated presence, A1’s handover of a packet, the petitioner’s possession of similar packets, and the accuseds’ alleged attempt to flee were sufficient to leave the questions of the petitioner’s participation and the recipient’s age for investigation and trial. The Court directed the Investigating Officer to make efforts to identify and examine the student.

It left the petitioner free to raise all available defences, including non-compliance with Section 50, before the trial court, which must decide the case independently and uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.