The act of cultivating cannabis does not depend on whether the plants have flowering tops or are grown in pots, as both are considered cultivation under the law.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is an accused in S.C.No.1710/2025 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, which has arisen from Crime No.13/2025, registered by the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Sections 20 (a) (i) and 20 (b) (ii) (A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘ the Act’).

2. The prosecution case, succinctly stated, is that on 17.04.2025, at about 19:10 hours, the excise officials received credible information that the petitioner was cultivating cannabis plants on the terrace of a rented building situated in T.C No.43/550 (43), KNRA-18, Kairali Residence Association, Muttathara Village, Thiruvananthapuram District. Acting upon the information, the Detecting Officer and party conducted a search of the building, in the presence of the petitioner, and seized two cannabis plants measuring 59 cm each, and three cannabis plants measuring 46, 35 and 29 cms each, all planted in pots. They also seized 5 grams of ganja seeds and dried branches from the petitioner’s bedroom.

3. I have heard the Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, even if all the allegations in Annexure 1 complaint are taken on their face value, the same will not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. He draws the attention of this Court to the definitions of ‘cannabis’ and ‘cannabis plant’ under Sections 2 (iii) (b) and (iv) of the Act, and argues that to qualify the definition of cannabis plant, there should be flowering or fruiting tops on the plant. As the seized cannabis plants did not have flowering or fruiting tops, the offence under Section 2 0 (a) (i) is not attracted. He further contends that the word used under Section 2 0 (a) (i) is ‘cultivates’ and not ‘plant’. Since there is no allegation that the petitioner had cultivated the plants, the above offence is also not attracted. The learned counsel also asserts that, as the 5 grams seized were only seeds and leaves, the same does not attract the offence under Section 2 0(b)(ii)(A). He also contends that Annexure 8 rental agreement establishes that the petitioner was not residing in the premises from where the alleged cannabis plants, seeds, and leaves were seized. Hence, the prosecution will not lie against the petitioner. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alakh Ram v. State of U.P. (2004) 1 SCC 766, the decision of this Court in Narendran Purakunnel Rajakkadu, Udumbanchola v. State of Kerala, 2022 KHC 4777, the decision of the Bombay High Court in Mohammad Jakir Nawab Ali v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3198, the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Killo Subbarao and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SC OnLine AP 2280, the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in K.K. Rejji and others v. State by Murdeshwar Police Station, Karwarm 2009 SCC OnLine Kar 325 and the unreported common judgment of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in Ganesan v. The State, Rep. by Dy. S.P, NIB-CID, Dindigul (Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 212 of 2020) to bolster his contentions.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the Crl. M.C. He contends that the allegations in the Annexure 1 complaint, if taken on their face value, obviously prove the petitioner’s culpability in the crime. The petitioner was apprehended red-handed with the five well-grown cannabis plants and 5 grams of ganja from the premises that he had taken on rent. The witnesses and