Madras High Court· 04 August 2026

Does a joint notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to all the accused vitiate the trial?

Saimon Debbarma v. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police

CRL OP.19697/2026 · 2026:MHC:3225 · CRL OP No. 19697 of 2026
Coram: Justice C.Kumarappan

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.50 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotr…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. The format or the joint information is not the matter; what is essential is that the accused was made aware about his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, and on the Constitution Bench ratio in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja even oral notice is sufficient. Where, by way of documents submitted by the petitioner, he was made aware about that right, this Court could not find any infirmity so as to vitiate the trial; if at all he has got any grievance, he still has his right before the Trial Court to establish the same.

Headnote

NDPS Act — s.50 — s.52A — s.37 — Constitution of India — Art.21 — Bail — Commercial quantity — Joint notice — NDPS Act — s.50 — Joint notice — Accused made aware of his right — Held: The format or the joint information is not the matter; what is essential is that the accused was made aware about his right under Section 50 to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, and even oral notice is sufficient. (¶5, 7) NDPS Act — s.52A — Guidelines while sending the samples — Procedural irregularity — Held further: Non compliance of Section 52A qua the guidelines while sending the samples may only be a procedural irregularity and will not vitiate the entire trial; it can only be considered during Trial, not at the stage of bail. (¶9) Constitution of India — Art.21 — No progress in the Trial — NBW against the other accused — On facts, held: Where the trial could not be proceeded with only because of issuance of NBW against the other accused, this Court could not find any merits in the Article 21 defence; his remedy is before the Trial Court to split up the case. (¶11) NDPS Act — s.37 — Commercial quantity — Defence that is matter for trial — Held further: Where the recovered contraband is a commercial quantity and the defence raised is matter for trial, this Court could not find any merits to overcome the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Criminal Original Petition dismissed. (¶10, 12, 13)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 5The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in respect of issuance of Section 50 joint notice. By referring to Parmanand’s case [cited supra], learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the joint communication in respect of the right available under Section 50(1) of NDPS Act defeats the very purpose of Section 50 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 07:16:12 pm ) thereby, the entire trial will be vitiated. In this regard, it is relevant to refer paragraph 24 of the Constitutional Bench judgment in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 609.

Paragraph 7From the above narration of judgments, it is amply clear that the format or the joint information is not the matter. What is essential is that, to made the accused aware about the right under Section 50 of NDPS Act. In the present case, by way of documents submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was made aware about his right under Section 50 of NDPS Act. Therefore, by virtue of the Constitutional Bench judgment, this Court could not find any infirmity so as to vitiate the trial. If at all the petitioner has got any grievance, still he has got his right before the Trial Court to establish the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 07:16:12 pm )

Acts & Sections

s.50 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s.37 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s.52A Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s.52 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s.8(c) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s.20(b)(ii)(C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s.29(1) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Art.21 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Saimon Debbarma v. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can the Court grant bail under Article 21 where the trial could not proceed only because of NBW against the other accused?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections