SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 27374

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
KALJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 16060 / 2023



Advocates:
Mr. Raghuveer Singh, Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP

Bail under the NDPS Act can be granted if the offence does not involve commercial quantity, despite the general prohibition under Section 37.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8 and 20 - Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Accused-petitioners contended that no case is made out against them for the alleged offences under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act - The court noted that the total weight of the recovered contraband was improperly calculated, including parts not defined as contraband - The court found that the provisions of Section 37 regarding bail were not applicable as the offence did not involve commercial quantity - Bail granted based on previous case law. (Paras 2, 5, 7, 8, 9)

(B) Bail - The court emphasized that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons against it, particularly when the accused is not involved in a commercial quantity offence. (Paras 7, 8)

                                                                                                                                         Order

04/01/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.Particulars of the Case
1.FIR Number215/2023
2.Concerned Police StationKalinjara
3.DistrictBanswara
4.Offences alleged in the FIRSection 8/20 of the NDPS Act
5.Offences added, if any
6.Date of passing of impugned order14.12.2023

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration are not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record. Section 2 of the NDPS Act contains the definitions and clause (iii) of the same defines what "cannabis (hemp)" means, through three sub-clauses. The sub-clause (b) of clause (iii)defines 'ganja' as "the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated.

5. As averred, for the purpose of determining the total weight of the recovered contraband ganja, the whole plants were taken into consideration, including the seeds, roots, stems and leaves, along with the soil as well whereas only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plants should have been taken for weighing of contraband ganja as per the defining clause under N.D.P.S. Act. As there was no bifurcation of seeds and leaves from the flowering or fruiting tops before weighing the recovered contraband. The cultivation of "any cannabis plant"

is prohibited and made an offence under sub-clause (b) of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Further, it is imperative to mention Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which discusses the punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act reads as follows:-

“20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.—Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,—

(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or (b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,—

[(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and (ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),— ]

(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 [one year], or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;

(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;

(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.”

6. Contravention of provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act by cultivation of any cannabis plant is covered in clause(a) of Section 20 and contravention by production, manufacture,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top