KISHORE KUMAR PRASAD, J.

The petitioner-accused Promodh Jha residing at village Absar within the limits of Washaliganj, Dist-Nowda, Bihar has filed this application for bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with T.R. Case No.20/2007 arising out of Bally P.S. case no.216/07 dated 6.8.07 u/s 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S Act, pending before Judge, Special Court under N.D.P.S. Act, Howrah (A.D.J., 3rd Court, Howrah).

As per prosecution version, 100 Kgs. Of ‘Bhang’ in four gunny bags was recovered from the possession of the petitioner-accused on 6.8.07 at about 12.35 hrs. near Bamurdanga Bridge within the limits of Bally police station when he was travelling in a bus bearing no.WB-73-9297 styled as ‘Sangita’ from Dunkuni side on N.H.2 (Delhi Road). For that recovery, the petitioner along with three others namely the two drivers of the bus and the manager/conductor of the bus, all residing in different districts of Bihar, was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable u/s 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act for possessing, selling, transporting, importing inter-state and using of Bhang in contravention of the provision of the Act.

Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset raised the contention that ‘Bhang’ is not a narcotic or psychotropic drug as defined under the Act and hence its possession is not an offence.

He submitted that ‘Bhang’ has not been included in the definition of cannabis (hemp) and its sale, import or export and possession has not been made punishable under the Act. He relied upon the two judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Rajasthan High Court reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 253 and 1993 Cr.L.J. 2503 respectively.

Per contra, Ld. P.P. appearing for the State submitted that ‘Bhang’ falls under the definition of cannabis and there is strong prima facie evidence against the applicant for the offence complained of.

It is true that the cannabis plant and cannabis (hemp) are two different contrabands under N.D.P.S. Act. Cannabis (hemp) is defined under section 2(iii) of the said Act which includes charas and ganja and also any mixture with or without any neutral material of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom.

Charas is defined under section 2(iii)(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act which means separated resin in whatever form whether crude or purified obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as Hashish oil or liquid hashish.

Under section 2(iii)(b) of the Act Ganja is also defined according to which ganja is flowering tops of the cannabis plant (excluding seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated.

Cannabis plant is defined under section 2(iv) of the Act which means any plant of the genus cannabis.

It is easily deducible from the aforesaid definitions that Charas popularly known as Hashish is separated resin obtained from cannabis plant (hemp) either from its natural discharge of resin through its pores or by its incisions by human hands. Thus Charas is not a cannabis plant but it is resin obtained from it whereas Ganja is the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by tops.

For deeper understanding of the controversy involved in the present case it is pertinent to mention that Bhang cannabis plant are of two kinds known as male and female. A female cannabis plant is called PISTILLATE plants whereas male plants are identified by SHORT AXILLARY DROPPING PANICLES. Female flowering tops quoted with resin are Ganja whereas fruiting leaves are called Bhang (see Vonosshadhi Nirdeshika (Ayurvediya Pharmacopia).

According to Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 21st Edition, 1988 (Toxicology Chapter) XXXIV, Page 248, ‘Bhang’, ‘Siddhi’, ‘Patti’ are Cannabis Sativa consists of dried leaves and fruiting shoots whereas Ganja has rusty green colour and a characteristic odour and consists of flowering or fruiting tops of the female pl