Bhang Not 'Cannabis' Under NDPS Act: Jharkhand HC [Read Judgment]

Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted a man convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, holding that Bhang does not fall within the statutory definition of cannabis (hemp) under Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act, after the Forensic Science Laboratory report itself identified the seized substance as Bhang rather than Ganja.

Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava was hearing an appeal filed by Sunil Kumar Singh against a judgment of the Special Judge-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-VI), Jamshedpur, which had convicted him under Sections 22(B), 20(B) and 11(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000.

As per the prosecution case, a police patrolling party had apprehended the appellant near Chaibasa Bus Stand in the early hours of 17.10.2000 after he was found fleeing with a briefcase. Upon search in the presence of witnesses and a Gazetted Officer, 12 polythene packets containing about 11 kg of Ganja were allegedly recovered, leading to registration of a case under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the FSL report dated 29.11.2002 had specifically opined that the seized vegetable substance was Bhang and not Ganja, and that Bhang stood excluded from the punitive ambit of the NDPS Act. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana, Bombay and Rajasthan High Courts holding that Bhang does not fall within the definition of cannabis under the Act.

The State opposed the appeal, submitting that the FSL report itself noted that Ganja and Bhang were both cannabis, and that the seized substance therefore fell within the purview of the NDPS Act.

Examining Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act, which defines cannabis (hemp) to include charas, ganja, and any mixture of the two, the court held that there was no scientific evidence to show that Bhang was prepared from either charas or ganja, and that the Act nowhere referred to Bhang as a prohibited drug. The court observed, "Ganja and Charas are included within the definition of cannabis (Hemp), whereas under N.D.P.S. Act, Bhang is excluded, therefore, Bhang does not fall within the definition of cannabis (Hemp) as defined under Section 2(iii) of N.D.P.S. Act."

The court further noted that cultivation of the cannabis plant was punishable under Section 20(a) read with sub-clause (b)(i) of the NDPS Act, but that the present case involved mere possession of a substance ultimately found to be Bhang, which stood specifically excluded from the purview of the Act. The court accordingly held that the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 22(B), 20(B) and 11(B) of the NDPS Act was illegal and unjustified in law.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and discharged him from the liability of his bail bonds and sureties.

Appearances: Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate, appeared for the appellant, while Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P., appeared for the State of Jharkhand.

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Singh versus State of Jharkhand (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 726 of 2009) 

[Read Judgment]