To convict under the NDPS Act for cannabis cultivation, it must be proven that the accused intentionally cultivated the plants, supported by proper evidence and segregation of the plants.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“ A. To allow the Criminal Petition.

B. To quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner i.e., Accused in SPL.C.No.802/2025 i.e., Crime No.39/2024-25/0502ie/050204 registered by the Nelamangala Range Excise PS for the offences punishable under 20(a), 20(b), (ii) (B), 25, 8(b) of NDPS Act, pending on the file of the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (Annexure-D)

C. And grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record comprising of the compliant, charge sheet material, statement of witnesses, documents etc., will clearly indicate that the alleged ganja plants were not segregated prior to weighing the same and charge sheet having been filed without doing so, is contrary to the provisions laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments, which have been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Ram v. State of U.P. – (2004) 1 SCC 766 , followed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case ofChandrashekar vs. State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.11138/2024 Dated 29.04.2025, wherein it is held as under:-

“ The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.665 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 20 (a) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Jaysham Jayashimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri B N Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

It is the case of the prosecution that on an alleged tip off they conduct a search in the house of the petitioner, a senior citizen on 01-09-2023 at about 4.30 p.m. on an allegation that the petitioner is cultivating 5 to 6 cannabis plants in his property. The search and seizure leads to registration of a crime initially for offence punishable under Section 20 (a) of the ‘Act’. The police then conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner. The concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 19-03-2024, takes cognizance of the offences under Sections 20 (a) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Act and registers Spl.C.C.No.665 of 2024 and issues summons to the petitioner. Taking of cognizance and issuance of summons is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel Sri Jaysham Jayashimha Rao appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that offence of cultivation would mean an intentional raising of plants. Cultivation is not defined under the Act. The police seize 5 cannabis plants amongst other general weed that was grown in the backyard of the property belonging to the petitioner. There is no allegation that he has intentionally raised those plants. At best, it could be cross pollination, is the submission of the learned counsel. He would further contend that there is no evidence placed on record which would depict cultivation of the cannabis plant. While weighing the plants that were taken, they are not segregated to what would become cannabis and 5 plants, all together with roots, stems, leaves and buds are weighed at 27.360 kgs, which according to him, is completely contrary to law.

5. Per-contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submission to contend that the police have seized plants and the amount of cannabis involved in the seizure is a matter of trial. Charge sheet has been filed, prima facie, the petitio