IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T.Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
M.Nagaraju - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 8382 of 2023
Decided On : 08-11-2023
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Sec. 8(b) r/w. 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act - Sec. 36A, Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C. - [Sec. 8(b), Sec. 20, Sec. 36A, Sec. 167(2)] - The court discussed the definitions and provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly focusing on the definition of 'ganja' and the punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plants and cannabis under Sec. 20. The court also considered the applicability of Sec. 36A and Sec. 167(2) of Cr.P.C. in the context of the case, ultimately leading to the decision to grant bail to the petitioner/accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/accused filed a bail application seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sec. 8(b) r/w. 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act for cultivating cannabis plants. The prosecution's case involved the seizure and destruction of cannabis plants, and the petitioner contested the commercial quantity and applicability of certain provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the weight of the plants cannot be considered for determining commercial quantity and that the petitioner was entitled to bail under Sec. 167(2) of Cr.P.C. due to prolonged judicial custody. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioner/accused with specific conditions.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the interpretation of the NDPS Act, particularly the definition of 'ganja', the punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plants and cannabis under Sec. 20, and the applicability of Sec. 36A and Sec. 167(2) of Cr.P.C. in the context of the bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the specific definitions and provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding the determination of commercial quantity and the entitlement to bail under Sec. 167(2) of Cr.P.C. based on prolonged judicial custody.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was allowed, and the petitioner/accused was granted bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Petition, under Ss. 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.272 of 2023 of Kuppam Urban Police Station, Chittoor District.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sec. 8(b) read with 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act").
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 7/7/2023 at about 11.00 A.M. at Thangedikuppam Village, Kuppam Mandal, the accused, who was cultivating Cannabis plants in Survey No.115/8A3, was arrested under a cover of mahajarnama and 70 plants were destroyed by burning them. Then, the Investigation Officer seized 3 cannabis plants and sent the same for chemical examination after duly sealed and labeled. The said cannabis plants were weighing about 50 Kgs and thereafter the accused was sent for judicial custody.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Prosecution"s case, the cannabis plants were seized and 70 plaints were destroyed and it is not the case that material was found with flowering or fruiting tops along with seeds and the weighment of the plants is 50 kgs and as such, it cannot be treated as non-commercial quantity.
5. On the contrary, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition on the ground that the investigation is not completed.
6. Heard. Perused the record.
7. The expression "ganja" as defined in Sec. 2 (iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, does not include seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. Sec. 2(iii)(b) defines ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated.
8. The definition itself shows that when the leaves and twigs are accompanying the flowering or fruiting tops, the same are called "Ganja" and the leaves and twigs are not required to be separated therefrom.
9. As already noted, it is the prosecution"s case that from the fields of accused, three cannabis plants were seized and the remaining 70 plants were destroyed. Nowhere in the seizurenama, it has mentioned that the material found was with flowering or fruiting tops. In the definition, the legislature has specifically excluded seeds and leaves and specifically mentioned that cannabis means fruiting or flowering tops.
10. According to the prosecution"s case, weight of 70 ganja plants is about 50 kgs. It is not the weight of the plants which is to be taken into consideration. It is not the case that the said plants contain flowering and fruiting tops.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the crime is registered against the accused was under Sec. 8(b) r/w. 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act. He further submits that if the accusations made against the accused in the Remand Report are taken to be true, Sec. 8(b) of the NDPS Act may be applicable to the accused. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer Sec. 8(b) and (c) of the NDPS Act, which reads as under:
"(b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or (c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export interState, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation: Provided that, and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the prohibition against the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of ganja or the production, possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing, import inter-State and exp
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the NDPS Act, particularly in determining commercial quantity and entitlement to bail under Sec. 167(2) of....
Bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. The court must consider various factors, including the nature of the offence, character of the accused, and apprehension of witnesses being tampered with....
Point of Law : Police has filed this charge-sheet for cultivation of cannabis plants as also possession of Ganja, if it failed to prove at the time of trial, if at all they are able to prove, that to....
Section 20 of N.D.P.S. Act reads as punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.
The decision to grant bail was influenced by the interpretation of the NDPS Act, specifically regarding the small quantity of contraband seized and the absence of evidence of habitual offending.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of ganja under the NDPS Act and its application in determining the need for custodial interrogation and granti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.