Madras High Court Redefines Convictions in Ganja Possession Cases, Orders Reduction of Sentences

Court holds that conviction under NDPS Act for commercial quantity of ganja without segregating psychoactive parts violates fair trial; mandates conviction under below commercial quantity with reduced punishment.

In a landmark judgment delivered on October 15, 2025, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) addressed a batch of appeals relating to convictions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, concerning possession of commercial quantities of ganja. The bench, presided over by Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, scrutinized the legal validity of convictions and sentences awarded to several appellants accused of illegal possession and transportation of ganja.

The court’s detailed analysis emphasized the critical importance of distinguishing the psychoactive parts of the cannabis plant-namely, the flowering or fruiting tops-which constitute “ganja” under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. It held that convicting individuals for possessing commercial quantities of ganja without separate weighing of these parts and instead considering the entire heterogeneous mixture including leaves, seeds, stems, stalks, and the container amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Key Issues Addressed:

• 1. Compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act:  The court examined whether the mandatory procedure of recording secret information in writing and forwarding it to immediate superiors before conducting a search and seizure was complied with. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, the bench found that, on facts, the prosecution sufficiently proved compliance in all cases despite minor discrepancies.

• 2. Applicability of Section 50 of the NDPS Act:  The court clarified that strict compliance of Section 50 (informing accused of their right to be searched before a Judicial Magistrate or Gazetted Officer) is necessary only when the contraband is recovered from the body of the accused. Since all recoveries in these cases were from bags or vehicles, oral communication of rights sufficed, consistent with binding Supreme Court precedents including State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh.

• 3. Mention of Crime Number Before FIR Registration:  The presence of crime numbers on recovery memos and sample labels prior to FIR registration was held not to vitiate the prosecution’s case, as it is a routine practice to affix crime numbers for proper identification and safe custody of seized material.

• 4. Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses:  Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Mukesh Singh v. State, the court held that non-examination of independent witnesses does not automatically discredit police evidence if it is cogent and trustworthy.

• 5. Delay in Producing Contraband and Samples:  The court referred to Supreme Court rulings to conclude that delay in producing contraband before the Special Court or sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory is not fatal, provided the seals are intact and no tampering is shown.

• 6. Compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act:  The court highlighted recent Supreme Court clarifications that procedural lapses or delayed compliance with Section 52A (relating to inventory, photographing, and sampling of seized substances) do not vitiate the trial or conviction unless they cause prejudice.

• 7. Definition and Weight of “Ganja”:  Most crucially, the court undertook a comprehensive review of the botanical and pharmacological aspects of cannabis, supported by scientific manuals, historical reports, and authoritative judgments (including the UK House of Lords’ decision in Directorate of Prosecution v. Goodchild).

•   - It held that “ganja” under the NDPS Act strictly means the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, excluding seeds and leaves unless accompanied by the tops.  
•   - The entire weight of seized material including stems, stalks, and luxuriant leaves cannot be counted towards the commercial quantity.  
•   - The chemical analysis report showing presence of “cannabinoid” without specifying THC percentage or confirming presence of flowering/fruiting tops does not suffice to establish commercial quantity possession.  
•   - In borderline cases where the total weight is between 21 and 25 kg, failure to segregate and weigh only the flowering or fruiting tops violates the accused’s right to fair trial.

• 8. Conversion of Conviction and Reduction of Sentence:  Applying these principles, the court set aside convictions under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) (commercial quantity) of the NDPS Act in all the appeals and instead convicted the appellants under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) (below commercial quantity). The sentences of 10-12 years rigorous imprisonment with heavy fines were reduced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with proportionate fines of Rs. 50,000 and default simple imprisonment of six months.

The court also took into account the personal circumstances of the appellants (age, conduct in jail, family responsibility) and directed appropriate set-off of sentences already undergone. It mandated release of appellants unless required in other cases. The seized contraband was ordered to be destroyed and vehicles confiscated and disposed of.

Significance:  

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring strict compliance with statutory safeguards in NDPS cases, especially given the severe punishment and stringent bail conditions attached to commercial quantity offences. It clarifies the precise meaning of “ganja” and demands meticulous proof of the psychoactive parts’ weight before convicting for commercial quantity possession. The decision aims to prevent wrongful incarceration and uphold constitutional rights, setting a precedent likely to impact numerous pending and future NDPS cases in Tamil Nadu and beyond.

Statutory provision(s):  

Section 2(iii)(b), Section 8(c), Section 20(b)(ii)(B) and 20(b)(ii)(C), Section 25, Section 29(1), Section 37, Section 42, Section 50, Section 52A, Section 54, Section 57, Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Ganesan v. State, (Madras)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2795941