Bhang Is Not 'Cannabis (Hemp)' Under NDPS Act; Jharkhand High Court Quashes Conviction

"Bhang is excluded from the definition of 'cannabis (hemp)' under the NDPS Act." — Jharkhand High Court

In an important judgment interpreting the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Jharkhand High Court has held that possession of bhang does not constitute an offence under the Act because it is not included within the statutory definition of "cannabis (hemp)" under Section 2(iii).

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava allowed a criminal appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant after the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) confirmed that the seized substance was bhang and not ganja.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an incident that allegedly took place on October 17, 2000.

According to the prosecution, a police patrol team intercepted the appellant near the Chaibasa Bus Stand after he allegedly attempted to flee on noticing the police.

During the search of a VIP briefcase carried by the appellant, conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and a Gazetted Officer, police claimed to have recovered:

• 12 polythene packets

• Approximately 11 kilograms of ganja

Following the recovery, the appellant was prosecuted under the NDPS Act.

Conviction Challenged Before the High Court

The appellant challenged his conviction before the Jharkhand High Court under:

• Section 20(B)

• Section 22(B)

• Section 11(B)

of the NDPS Act.

The appeal primarily relied upon the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).

FSL Report Found the Substance Was Bhang

Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant referred to the FSL report dated November 29, 2002.

The laboratory report concluded that the seized material was bhang and not ganja.

The appellant argued that although the report noted that both bhang and ganja originate from cannabis, the NDPS Act specifically excludes bhang from the statutory definition of "cannabis (hemp)" under Section 2(iii).

Therefore, mere possession of bhang could not attract criminal liability under the NDPS Act.

State Opposed the Appeal

The State opposed the appeal.

It argued that since the FSL report itself mentioned that both ganja and bhang are cannabis, the recovered substance should still be treated as falling within the scope of the NDPS Act.

High Court Examines Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act

While deciding the appeal, the High Court closely examined the statutory definition contained in Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act.

The Court also relied upon earlier judgments delivered by:

• Karnataka High Court

• Punjab and Haryana High Court

• Bombay High Court

• Rajasthan High Court

These decisions consistently held that bhang is not included within the statutory definition of "cannabis (hemp)" under the NDPS Act.

The Court observed that Section 2(iii) specifically includes:

• Charas

• Ganja

• Mixtures containing charas or ganja

However, bhang is not mentioned anywhere in the definition.

No Scientific Evidence Linking Bhang to Charas or Ganja

Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava further noted that no scientific material had been placed before the Court to establish that bhang is prepared from charas or ganja.

The Court also observed that:

• The NDPS Act does not prohibit bhang.

• No rules or notifications issued by the State Government classify bhang as a prohibited narcotic substance.

Accordingly, the Court held:

"In view of above discussion and reasons and specific consideration, it is crystal clear that 'Ganja' and 'Charas' are included within the definition of cannabis (Hemp), whereas under N.D.P.S. Act, 'Bhang' is excluded…"

Conviction Held to Be Illegal

The Court noted that the present matter was not a case involving cultivation of cannabis plants.

Instead, it concerned possession of a substance initially believed to be ganja but later confirmed by forensic examination to be bhang.

Since bhang is excluded from the statutory definition under the NDPS Act, the Court held that the conviction could not be legally sustained.

Justice Srivastava observed that the conviction under the NDPS Act was:

"Absolutely illegal and not justified under law."

The High Court accordingly allowed the criminal appeal and set aside both the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.

Key Observations of the High Court

The judgment makes several important legal findings:

• Bhang is excluded from the definition of "cannabis (hemp)" under Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act.

• Charas and ganja are specifically included within the statutory definition.

• Mere possession of bhang does not constitute an offence under the NDPS Act.

• The FSL report confirming that the seized substance was bhang was decisive.

• No scientific evidence showed that bhang is prepared from charas or ganja.

• Neither the NDPS Act nor State Government notifications prohibit possession of bhang.

Case Details

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case Number: Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 726 of 2009

Court: Jharkhand High Court

Judge: Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

For Appellant: Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal

For Respondent: Mrs. Nehala Sharmin