While observing that ‘bhang’ does not fall within the definition of cannabis (hemp) and the same is specifically excluded from the purview of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), the Jharkhand High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of an accused for the offence under Sections 22(B), 20(B) & 11 (B).

The High Court was considering a criminal appeal directed against the judgment whereby the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years along with a fine of Rs. 50,000 in a case registered under Sections 22(B) and 20 (B), 11(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava held, “In the instant case, there is no allegation of cultivation of cannabis plant, rather possession of some substance like Ganja, which was ultimately found to be Bhang, which is specifically excluded from the purview of N.D.P.S. Act. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Sections 22(B) and 20(B), 11 (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act is absolutely illegal and not justified under law.”

Advocate Naveen Kr. Jaiswal represented the Appellant while Special Public Prosecutor Nehala Sharmin represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A police patrolling party apprehended the accused holding a heavy briefcase when he was coming from a bus stand. It was alleged that in the presence of witnesses and the Gazetted Officer, a search was conducted and 12 Polythene Packs of Ganja weighing about 11 kg were recovered from him. Accordingly, the case was instituted under Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The appellant was charged with the aforesaid offences. After the conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was passed against the appellant, which was assailed in the appeal.

Argument

The primary contention of the appellant was that in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, “Bhang” is excluded from the ambit of the Act as a punishable offence and therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant were fit to be set aside.

Reasoning

On a perusal of Section 2(iii)(a) and (b), the Bench explained that charas and ganja or (c) i.e., any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom, there is no scientific evidence before the Court to show that the Bhang is prepared out of either charas or ganja or ganja leaves.

“Since ganja leaves and seeds are excluded from the definition of ganja and nowhere in the NDPS Act the Bhang is referred as a prohibited drink or prohibited drug. Even the State Government has not made any rules under the NDPS and mentioned about the Bhang as prohibitory drug or issued any notifications in respect of Bhang”, it added.

The Bench further held that ‘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, rather cultivation of cannabis plant is punishable under Section 20(a) read with Sub-Clause (b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act”, it added.

Thus, holding the conviction to be unjustified under the law, the Bench set aside the same and allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:19082)

Click here to read/download Order



Tags: