Court Rules Bhang Not a Prohibited Substance Under NDPS Act; Acquits Sunil Kumar Singh
In a significant legal ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has overturned the conviction of Sunil Kumar Singh, who was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 50,000 for possession of a substance initially identified as Ganja. The court found that the substance was in fact Bhang, which does not fall under the prohibitions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
The case arose from an incident on October 17, 2000, when police apprehended Singh at Chaibasa Bus Stand with a briefcase containing 12 polythene packs of a substance weighing approximately 11 kg. The substance was initially believed to be Ganja, leading to Singh's conviction by the Special Judge-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, under Sections 20(B), 22(B), and 11(B) of the NDPS Act.
However, upon forensic examination, the substance was identified as Bhang, not Ganja. Bhang, according to Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act, is excluded from the definition of cannabis (Hemp), which only includes Charas, Ganja, and any mixture containing these substances. The High Court, presided over by Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, noted that Bhang is not recognized as a prohibited substance under the Act, making Singh's conviction legally unsustainable.
The court relied on precedents set by various High Courts, including Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana, Bombay, and Rajasthan, which have consistently held that Bhang is not covered under the NDPS Act's definition of cannabis (Hemp). This pivotal interpretation underscores the distinction between different forms of cannabis and the legal implications of their possession.
During the appeal, Singh's legal counsel, Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, argued that the conviction was unwarranted given the forensic report's findings. The State's Special Public Prosecutor, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, contended that both Ganja and Bhang are forms of cannabis, but the court clarified that only specific forms of cannabis are prohibited under the Act.
Justice Srivastava emphasized the lack of any scientific evidence or statutory provision categorizing Bhang as a prohibited substance. Consequently, the court acquitted Singh of all charges and ordered his immediate release, setting aside the previous judgment and sentence.
This ruling not only underscores the importance of precise legal definitions within the NDPS Act but also highlights the necessity for law enforcement and judicial bodies to rely on scientific evidence in drug-related cases.
Bottom line:-
Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, "Bhang" does not fall within the definition of cannabis (Hemp) as per Section 2(iii). Therefore, possession of "Bhang" does not constitute an offence punishable under the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 2(iii), 20(B), 22(B), 11(B)
Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2933197
