Thamjeed Maqbool Vs The Inspector of Police

PRAYER IN CRL.MP.No.8560 of 2026: To suspend the sentence imposed by the learned Additional District Judge/Special Court under EC Act/NDPS Act Cases at Coimbatore in CC.No.90 of 2020 dated 29.04.2026 and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the said Criminal Appeal.

¶11

PRAYER IN CRL.MP.No.8561 of 2026 : To suspend the sentence imposed by the learned Additional District Judge/Special Court under EC Act/NDPS Act Cases at Coimbatore in CC.No.90 of 2020 dated 29.04.2026 and enlarges the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the said Criminal Appeal.

¶12

Page1 of 12

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

PRAYER IN CRL A No. 631 of 2026 : To Call for the entire records in connection with C.C.No. 90/2020 dt. 29.04.2026 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge/Special Court under EC Act/NDPS Act Cases at Coimbatore and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Learned Special Court under EC Act/NDPS Act Cases, Coimbatore in C.C.No. 90/2020 dt. 29.04.2026 and pass such further or other orders.

¶15

PRAYER IN CRL A No. 638 of 2026 : To Call for the entire records in connection with C.C.No. 90/2020 dt. 29.04.2026 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge/Special Court under EC Act/NDPS Act Cases at Coimbatore and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Learned Special Court under EC Act/NDPS Act Cases, Coimbatore in C.C.No. 90/2020 dt. 29.04.2026 and pass such further or other orders.

¶16

For Appellant(s): Mr.Selvakumar Subramaniam For Respondent(s): Mr.R.John Sathyan, State P.P

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

CRL.MP.No.8560 of 2026 has been filed for suspending the

¶19

sentence imposed in the judgment passed in CC.No.90 of 2020 dated 29.04.2026 by the learned Additional District Judge/Special Court under EC Act/NDPS Act Cases at Coimbatore.

¶20

CRL.MP.No.8561 of 2026 has been filed for suspending the sentence imposed in the judgment passed in CC.No.90 of 2020 dated 29.04.2026 by the learned Additional District Judge/Special Court under EC Act/NDPS Act Cases at Coimbatore. (Hereinafter referred to as ‘ Trial Court’)

¶21

Page2 of 12

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶24

2.1. On 03.02.2020, the respondent police and his team found the

¶25

accused in illegal possession of 4.400 grams of 15 numbers MDMA Tablets and 500 grams of Ganja and the second accused in illegal possession of 500 grams of ganja, intended for sale to the public.

¶26

2.2. The accused were arrested and the contraband was seized. After returning to the respondent police station, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(b) and 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 8(c) r/w 22(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 against A1 and offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985 against A2 .

¶27

2.3. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.90 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Judge/Special Court under EC Act/NDPS Act Cases, Coimbatore.

¶28

2.4. After hearing the counsel on both sides, charges were framed against the accused.

¶29

2.5. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked. On the side of the defence, neither any witness was examined nor any document marked.

¶30

Page3 of 12

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

2.6. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments on both sides and

¶33

upon consideration of the entire materials on record, found the petitioners/appellants-Accused Nos.1 & 2 guilty of the offences charged and convicted and sentenced him vide judgment dated 29.04.2026 as follows:-

¶34

By the impugned Judgments dated 29.04.2026, the Trial Court

¶35

convicted the Petitioner/Accused A1 and sentenced as follows:

¶36

Sl. No.	Sections	Imprisonment	Fine amount
1	Section 8(c) r/w 22(b) and 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985	To undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment (in default to undergo 6 months Rigorous imprisonment)	30,000/-
2	Section 8(c) r/w 22(b) of NDPS Act, 1985	To undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment (in default to undergo 3 months Rigorous imprisonment)	10,000/-

¶37

3.1 . By the impugned Judgment dated 29.04.2026, the Trial Court

¶38

convicted the Petitioner/Accused A2 and sentenced as follows:

¶39

Sl. No.	Sections	Imprisonment	Fine amount
1	Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985	To undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment (in default to undergo 3 months Rigorous imprisonment)	10,000/-

¶40

Page4 of 12

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

It is submitted that in this case, both PW1 and PW2 namely the SubInspector of Police, NIB CID Coimbatore and Head Constable of NIB CID Coimbatore have corroborated each other’s statements which had been extracted in the impugned judgment stating that PW1 had explained the requirement of Section 50 to the accused and the accused waived his right to be examined before the Gazetted officer or the Magistrate as is contemplated under Section 50 NDPS, 1985.

¶43

Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants-Accused Nos.1 & 2, on the other hand would draw attention to the evidence of PW4 namely another Head Constable of NIB CID Coimbatore wherein during cross-examination of PW4, PW4 had stated that the first accused was aware of Tamil, as he was studying in Tamil Nadu. He would also submit that during cross- examination of PW2, PW2 has admitted that he was not aware that the Ex.P2 Mahazar had mentioned that the accused did not know Tamil.

¶44

Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand would draw attention to the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in

¶45

1) Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC

¶46

609

¶47

2) Arif Khan @ Agha Khan Vs. State of Uttarkhand. AIR 2018 SC

¶48

2123

¶49

Page5 of 12

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

3) Ranjan Kumar Chadha Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 AIR SCC 5164

¶52

Specifically, learned counsel for the Respondent would draw attention

¶53

to the paragraph Nos.24, 29, 31 and 32 of the decision of the Apex Court in

¶54

Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat referred supra which reads as follows:

¶55

__________ Page6 of 12

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

From the decisions, it is submitted that in para-18 the Hon’ble Supreme

¶58

Court has clearly extracted the content of Section 50 (1) of NDPS Act, 1985 which contemplates that the accused shall be informed of his right, if he so

¶59

Page7 of 12

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

desires, he shall be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and failure to inform the suspect about the existence of the said right would cause prejudice to him.

¶62

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants-Accused Nos.1 & 2 and learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent and I have also considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court particularly the decisions of the Constitutional Bench of the Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat referred to supra.

¶63

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case has clearly stated that the object of Section 50 of NDPS Act, was to safeguard interest of accused person against the misuse of power and to avoid harm to innocent person and to minimize the allegations of planting or foisting of false cases by law enforcement agency. It therefore held that it would be imperative on the part of the empowered officer to appraise the person intended to be searched of his right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate.

¶64

It was further held that the failure to comply with the provision of the recovery of the illicit articles would render the recovery suspect and vitiate the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of recovery of illicit articles from the person of the accused during the search.

¶65

Page8 of 12

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that the suspect may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him under the provision. However, it is the duty of the court to get the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the provision to be construed.

¶68

The court has also observed that the question as to whether the procedure prescribed under Section 50 has been complied with or not is a matter of trial and that Section 50 gives an option to the empowered officer to take a search person (suspect) either before the nearest Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate, but in order to impart authenticity, transparency and credit worthiness to the entire proceedings, in the first instance, an endeavour should be to produce the suspect before any other Officer and that would not only add legitimacy to the search proceedings it may verily strengthen the prosecution as well.

¶69

The above passage in paragraph No.22 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Arif Khan @ Agha Khan Vs. State of Uttarkhand. AIR 2018 SC 2123 and Ranjan Kumar Chadha Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 AIR SCC 5164.

¶70

__________ Page9 of 12

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶72

In this case according to the prosecution, the petitioners/appellants

¶73

were informed about their rights and the appellants were stated to have waived their rights to be searched before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer or as is contemplates under Section 50 of the NDPS Act,1955.

¶74

It has not been communicated in writing to the petitioners/AppellantsAccused Nos.1 & 2. Thus, prima facie the benefit of doubt be given to the petitioners.

¶75

In view of the above, the sentence of imprisonment is

¶76

suspended and the Petitioners/Accused are to be enlarged bail on conditions:-

¶77

Accordingly, pending disposal of the appeal, the sentences are suspended and the Petitioners/Appellants-Accused Nos.1 & 2 are enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

¶78

(i) The petitioners/Apellants-Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge/Special Court under EC Act/NDPS Act cases at Coimbatore.

¶79

(ii) The Petitioners/Appellants and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impressions in the surety bond and the Trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book and mobile numbers to ensure their identity and

¶80

Page10 of 12

¶81

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶82

(iii) The petitioners/Accused shall appear before the trial Court on every Monday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders, without fail;

¶83