High Court Rules on Legality of Seizing Unlisted Items During Search

The High Court has overturned a Thinadhoo Magistrate Court decision to release a police officer arrested after drugs were discovered during a search for vapes, ruling that unlisted items connected to a crime may lawfully be seized.

The case concerns Special Constable Mohamed Sajid Ahmed, who was arrested in GDh. Thinadhoo after police, acting under a search order to find vapes and related items, also found drugs. The magistrate’s court had ordered his release, reasoning that possession of vapes is a civil offence under the Tobacco Control Act and therefore did not justify his detention.

advertisement

advertisement

advertisement

The Prosecutor General’s Office appealed, arguing that the discovery of drugs provided grounds for arrest. State counsel told the High Court that, although the drugs were found in a location not specified in the search order, they were connected to drug trafficking. The prosecution further stated that the warrant had been issued on the basis of a criminal offence, not solely a civil matter.

Sajid’s lawyer countered that the Criminal Procedure Code requires an actual illegal act to be observed before detention, and that suspicion alone was insufficient. He argued that the drugs were outside the scope of the court order and that his client had been labelled a drug trafficker without the evidence being examined.

In its ruling, the High Court agreed with the magistrate that the Tobacco Control Act is a civil law but noted that certain activities, such as selling tobacco products without permission, constitute criminal offences. The bench ruled that under the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Code, police may seize items related to a crime even if they are not specified in a search order, and may arrest individuals suspected of involvement. The court therefore determined that Sajid’s arrest was lawful.

The High Court also addressed arguments regarding Sajid’s oath of office. While Sajid maintained that he had not taken the oath, the court noted he had participated in the ceremony and signed the relevant document. Judge Dheebanaz Fahmy, writing for the panel, observed that Sajid had made statements in the trial court suggesting he did not consider it wrong to receive his salary without formally taking the oath, remarks which the judge said undermined trust in the justice system.

The court’s judgment stated that while the validity of Sajid’s oath was not in question, the case highlighted the need for clearer policies and procedures on oath-taking to preserve public confidence in state institutions.

The High Court ordered that if police wish to seek further remand, the magistrate’s court must decide on the matter within two days.