Karnataka High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Senior Citizen | Sprouted Cannabis Plants In Backyard Without Proof Of Cultivation Do Not Attract Offence
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a senior citizen charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court held that in the absence of evidence proving intentional cultivation and due to failure in proper segregation of seized material, the prosecution cannot sustain. Accordingly, the proceedings before the trial court were set aside and quashed in its entirety.
The petitioner, a 67-year-old resident of Bengaluru, faced prosecution following the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) dated 01.09.2023. Based on a tip-off, the Banashankari Police conducted a search at his residential premises and allegedly discovered five to six cannabis plants among other weeds in the backyard of the property. The total weight of the seized plants, including roots, stems, leaves, and buds, along with a plastic bag, was recorded as 27.360 kilograms.
Following the search and seizure, an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and the trial court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 20(a) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. Special Criminal Case No. 665 of 2024 was registered and summons were issued to the petitioner.
Challenging the issuance of summons and continuation of proceedings, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the proceedings. The petitioner contended that the alleged cultivation lacked intentionality, as required under the NDPS Act, and that the seized material was improperly weighed and categorized.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the plants may have sprouted naturally among other vegetation, and no supporting evidence was presented to show conscious and intentional cultivation. Additionally, the weighing of the entire plant, including non-relevant parts such as roots and stems, was contrary to legal requirements. According to the petitioner’s counsel, only flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant qualify as ganja under the NDPS Act, and failure to segregate these parts rendered the case unsustainable.
In response, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that prima facie materials established the offence of cultivation and that the quantity of cannabis involved was a matter to be addressed during trial. The prosecution submitted that the charge sheet was valid and warranted continuation of the proceedings.
The Court thereafter considered the submissions of both parties along with the records placed on file.
The Court commenced its analysis by examining the circumstances of the case and referred extensively to the material placed on record. It recorded: “The petitioner, a hexagenerian, is hauled into these proceedings for a seemingly unknown growth of cannabis plants in his backyard.”
The Court considered the search and seizure conducted by the police and noted: “The alleged tip off led to search and the search led to seizure or uprooting of the alleged cannabis plants 6 in number weighing 27.360 kgs.”
A key point in the Court’s reasoning revolved around the manner in which the seized material was processed and weighed. Referring to the Property Form (P.F.) prepared at the time of seizure, the Court stated: “It would become an admitted fact that roots, stems, leaves, buds including plastic bag were put to weight. Whether this could be done is what is required to be noticed.”
In support of its analysis, the Court drew upon precedents including the decision of the Supreme Court in Alakh Ram v. State of U.P.. Quoting the Apex Court, it recorded: “It is quite reasonable to assume that sometimes the plants may sprout up, if seeds happen to be embedded in earth due to natural process. If plants are sprouted by natural growth, it cannot be said that it amounts to cultivation.”
The Court observed that the prosecution did not produce evidence to prove intentional cultivation. It further stated: “There must be supporting evidence to prove that the accused cultivated the plant and it is not enough that few plants were found in the property of the accused.”
The Court also noted that the Apex Court had drawn a distinction between casual or natural growth and intentional cultivation. It remarked: “If plants are sprouted by natural growth, it cannot be said that it amounts to cultivation.”
Similar observations were made with reference to judgments rendered by coordinate benches of the Karnataka High Court in Kolandaiswamy v. State of Karnataka, State of Karnataka v. Manjunath, Appayya v. State of Karnataka, and Manjunath P. V. v. State of Karnataka. In these cases, the Court had consistently held that where the seized material consisted of entire plants without segregation of flowering tops, the prosecution failed to satisfy the definition of “ganja” under the Act.
The Court recorded: “The Investigating Officer has taken the entire plant for the purpose of weighing and has come to the conclusion that the said ganja weighed was 5 kgs. Without following the said procedure, the weighing was made.”
Applying these legal principles to the facts before it, the Court stated: “The prosecution has not placed an iota of evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner was cultivating ganja and the quantity of ganja found from the backyard of the petitioner was admittedly weighed along with the entire plants that were uprooted without segregation.”
The Court concluded that continuation of prosecution in such circumstances would be contrary to law: “The charge sheet is filed blatantly contrary to law, as laid down by the Apex Court and followed by this Court in the afore-quoted judgments.”
Upon consideration of the entire record and legal position, the Court issued its binding directions. It held: “In that light, petition deserves to succeed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:”
The Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings. It stated: “Criminal Petition is allowed.”
It then concluded: “Entire proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.665 of 2024 pending on the file of XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bengaluru stand quashed.”
By this order, the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 20(a) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act against the petitioner stood terminated.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri Jaysham Jayashimha Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri B N Jagadeesh, Additional State Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 11138 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
[Read/Download order]
