The judgment establishes the interpretation of the definitions of 'cannabis' and 'cannabis (hemp)' under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and clarifies the authority of the Chemical Examiner to conduct analysis and the statutory requirements for police officers to act under S. 43 of the Act.

On 3-3-90 a Sub-Inspector of Police received information that four persons were dealing in narcotic drugs at Beach Hotel, Fort Kochi. He proceeded to the place and arrested four persons including the two appellants and seized "charas" from them (11.60 grams from the first appellant and 11 grams from the second appellant). The seized articles were produced before the Magistrate Court from where they were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory attached to the Government of Kerala. On analysis, they were identified to be "charas". The case was charge-sheeted and after trial the Sessions Court convicted the appellants of the offence under S. 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). Both were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 11 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each. Third and fourth accused were acquitted.

2. P.W. 1 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He spoke of the case that he received information from a police constable who was detailed for duty in the area in which Beach Hotel was situate. P.W. 1 also said that when he reached the portico of the hotel, he found the appellants whose pockets were seen bulging and on examination found that the pockets contained narcotic drugs. He identified them as charas. He prepared Exts. P2 and P3 mahazars for the articles seized and arrested the accused. Ext. P8 is the certificate issued by the Chemical Examiner showing that both articles were charas.

3. P.Ws. 2 and 3 were employees of Beach Hotel. Though both of them turned hostile, they said that police went to the hotel on the date in question and arrested some persons. P.W. 4, the police constable who gave information to P.W. 1 deposed that he knew that some persons were clandestinely dealing in narcotic drugs at or near Beach Hotel and so he informed the Sub-Inspector. He too was present when P.W. 1 arrested the persons and seized the articles.

4. Learned Sessions Judge found no reason to doubt the truth of the version spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 4. The facts spoken to by them are corroborated by Exts. P2 and P3 mahazars and by production of the two packets containing charas. Appellants examined four witnesses on their side, in an attempt to make forays into the prosecution fortress. D.W. 1 was the attestor in Ext. P3 mahazar. The witness admitted in cross-examination that he attested the same. He had no case that Ext. P3 was not prepared by the police. D.W. 3 said that he saw the police arresting the appellants. D.Ws. 2 and 4 had no useful points to contribute to the defence version. Thus, the attempt of the defence to make onslaughts on the prosecution story turned out to be a damp squib.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants advanced certain other arguments in the alternative. One such argument is that "charas" is not "cannabis" though it may fall within the definition of "cannabis (hemp)". The said contention is advanced in support of the plea that appellants cannot be convicted under S. 20(b)(ii) of the Act.

6. As the said contention has been very seriously pressed into service, the same has to be considered by reference to the relevant provisions. It is not in dispute that if the article found in the possession of the appellants is not "cannabis", then appellants can be convicted only under the residuary provision contained in S. 32 of the Act which says that whoever contravenes any provision of the Act or any rule or order made, "for which no punishment is separately provided in this Chapter" shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. The attempt to bring the offence within the ambit of Section 32 of the Act, if succeeds, will practically save the appellants from further incarceration since they have already completed the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed under the said section.

7. Cannabis (hemp) is a "narcotic drug" as defined in Section 2(xiv) of the Act. Section 8 of the Act prohi