JUDGMENT

B A Patil, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the proceedings pending in NCB F.No.48/1/5/2013/BZU on the file of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bengaluru pending in Spl.case No.52/2014 on the file of XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge for N.D.P.S. cases (CCH-33) for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w Sections 20(b), 28, 29 & 32B(d) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act').

2. I have heard Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri. H. Mallan Goud, learned SPP for the respondent- State virtually.

3. Before taking up the case on hand, it is just necessary to place on record certain aspects of the case. Earlier, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court heard this matter and vide order dated 14.12.2016 allowed the petition and proceedings initiated in special case No.52/2014 have been quashed. Subsequently, an application came to be filed by the respondent to recall the order dated 14.12.2016. This Court, after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties vide order dated 22.08.2017 allowed IA.Nos. 1 and 2/2017 and the order dated 14.12.2016 is recalled. As such, again I have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and learned SPP for the respondent and proceed to pass the present order.

4. The brief facts of the case alleged in the complaint are that the Intelligence Officers of NCB received a credible information on 27.08.2013 that the petitioner/accused No.1 was carrying ganja or cannabis and at about 8.30 p.m. he was travelling in a black color Santro car bearing registration No.KA 51-M-8359. The said vehicle has been intercepted by the officials of NCB and hence, search has been conducted on the person by giving him a notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act. They did not find anything from the possession of the person and after search of the car they found a white colored bag containing dried leaves dark brown in color and the same is claimed to be ganja, which was seized by drawing a mahazar. The said ganja was weighing about 15.552kgs and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.

5. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the panchnama which has been produced clearly goes to show that the articles seized from the car contained dried leaves dark brown in color and the same is not the ganja as defined in the NDPS Act. It is his further submission that the Superintendent was examined as PW2 and during the course of crossexamination of the said witness, he has clearly admitted that he has not gone personally to the spot and on perusal of the seized articles, it was containing the dried leaves of ganja. It is his further submission that in order to constitute ganja or cannabis as defined under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, the said thing must contain flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops). It is his further submission that when the seized article is not considered to be a ganja and if it is only leaves, then no offence has been committed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under the NDPS Act. It is his further submission that the said material has been sent for the chemical examination and even the said report indicates that it is containing dried greenish brown plants parts like leaves, seeds, flowers, fruits and etc., kept inside the plastic pouch and he has also given the opinion that it is ganja (cannabis). But however, the said material has not been analyzed and it has not been specifically stated that to what extent the said ingredients were containing tetrahydrocannabinol.

6. It is his further submission that the chemical examiner has to specifically say what is the content of tetrahydrocannabinol found in the said article. It is his further su