Preparing Joint Consent Memo To Search Both Accused Amounts To Violation Of Mandatory Requirement U/S 50 NDPS Act: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when two accused are searched under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, each must be individually informed of their right under Section 50 of the Act.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgements of State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand & Anr., 2014 & Ranjan Kumar Chaddha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 the Court held that “informing the right available under the NDPS Act jointly to both the accused persons is a clear violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act.”

The division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “A joint consent memo was prepared, which was signed by both the accused persons...as such the said lapse committed by the Investigation Officer amounts to violation of mandatory requirement, which was necessary to comply under Section 50 of NDPS Act."

In May 2012, during late-night patrolling, the police caught both the accused with narcotics and arrested them.

However, the trial court acquitted both the accused, holding that unless the percentage of THC (active chemical in cannabis resin) is specified in the FSL report, the recovered substance cannot be conclusively treated as charas.

Aggrieved, the State filed an appeal before the High Court.

The High Court remarked that the trial court was wrong in acquitting the accused based on the absence of THC (active chemical in cannabis resin) in the FSL report. It held that there is no legal requirement of the presence of a particular percentage of resin, and the presence of resin is sufficient to hold that the sample is that of Charas.

Further the Court observed that both the accused were informed of their right to be searched by the magistrate under Section 50 NDPS Act jointly through one memo instead of individually, which was incorrect as per the law.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus, the Court dismissed the State's appeal and directed both the accused to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety.

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Soni and another

Case No.: Cr. Appeal No. 4144 of 2013

Date of Decision: 23.09.2025

For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.

For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, as Legal Aid Counsel, for respondent No.1.

Ms. Aashima Premy, Advocate, as Legal Aid Counsel, for respondent No.2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order