JUDGMENT

Surjit Singh, J.—These six appeals, particulars whereof are given in the title of this judgment, are being disposed of together, because a common question of law and facts is raised in all of them, though in a couple of appeals a few other questions/points have also been raised, which will be dealt separately in the later part of it.

2. First, we may notice the facts, which have given rise to common question of law and facts in all the six cases. After dealing with the common question of law, we’ will sum up the facts of those individual cases in which a few other questions have been raised.

3. In five of the six cases, appellants have been convicted of offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for allegedly possessing charas. In the sixth case, accused has been acquitted and the State has appealed against his acquittal.

4. “Charas” is one of the three forms of cannabis, (hemp), as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, which reads as follows:

“(a) charas, that is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated prepara