The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday set aside criminal proceedings against a young law student accused of possessing a small quantity of ganja, holding that the police search violated mandatory legal safeguards and that the case itself was barred by limitation.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri passed the order while allowing a criminal petition filed by Pradeep Rajan, bringing an end to a prosecution that had been pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Sivagangai.
Read also:- Humiliation Is Not Justice: Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Placard Punishment for Student
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident dated September 2, 2023. According to the police, officers acting on “secret information” reached a spot in Sivagangai district and searched three individuals. Each was allegedly found carrying 10 grams of ganja in their shirt pockets.
Pradeep Rajan, a law student with no previous criminal record, was named as one of the accused. The police registered the case under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act, which deal with possession of small quantities of narcotic substances.
After the investigation, the charge sheet was filed only in September 2025-nearly two years after the alleged occurrence.
What the Petitioner Argued
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the entire prosecution was legally unsustainable. The recovery, he said, was from the petitioner’s shirt pocket, which clearly amounted to a personal search.
Under the NDPS Act, a personal search requires strict compliance with Section 50. This provision gives an accused the right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The defence claimed that no such right was individually explained to the petitioner.
The petition also pointed out that for offences involving small quantities, the law allows only one year for courts to take cognizance. Since the charge sheet was filed well beyond this period, and without any application seeking condonation of delay, the case was time-barred.
Court’s Observations
Justice Gowri agreed that the recovery was squarely from the “person” of the accused. “A shirt pocket is inseparable from the clothing worn on the body,” the court noted, making Section 50 fully applicable.
The judge was critical of the police relying on a joint or common consent form. “A joint, omnibus paper without demonstrable individual intimation does not satisfy the statutory mandate,” the bench observed.
The court also rejected the argument that such lapses could be examined only during trial. It held that when a case rests almost entirely on a personal search, and the record does not even prima facie show compliance with mandatory safeguards, forcing an accused to face trial itself becomes prejudicial.
Limitation and Delay
On the issue of limitation, the court noted that the offence carried a maximum punishment of one year. This meant the magistrate could not take cognizance after the expiry of one year unless the delay was properly explained and condoned.
“In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the prosecution invoked the provision for condonation of delay,” the judge said, adding that this defect further weakened the case.
Final Decision
Taking a cumulative view, the court concluded that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.
“The safeguards under the NDPS Act are not empty formalities. They are the backbone of credibility,” the bench observed.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Revives Dowry Death Case, Orders In-Laws to Face Trial in Andaman Mother
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Pradeep Rajan in S.T.C. No.1488 of 2025. All connected petitions were also closed, and any pending coercive steps against the petitioner were ordered to be recalled.
Case Title: Pradeep Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case No.: Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22581 of 2025
Decision Date: 02 January 2026
