Jharkhand HC Acquits Man After FSL Finds Seized Substance Was Bhang, Not Ganja, Excluded from NDPS Act

The Jharkhand High Court set aside a seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence after the FSL report showed the seized substance was bhang, which falls outside the NDPS Act's definition of cannabis.

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has acquitted Sunil Kumar Singh of all charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, after the Forensic Science Laboratory's own report established that the substance recovered from him was bhang — not ganja. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, sitting singly, held that bhang is expressly excluded from the definition of “cannabis (hemp)” under Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act and therefore its possession does not constitute a punishable offence under the Act. The conviction and seven-year sentence imposed by the Special Judge-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-VI), Jamshedpur in 2009 were set aside in their entirety. The judgment was pronounced on 30 June 2026.

The Arrest and Trial Court Conviction

The case traces back to 17 October 2000, when S.I. Arvind Kumar, Officer-in-Charge of Baghbera Police Station, filed a written report stating that a police patrolling party returning to the station at around 5:00 A.M. noticed one person carrying a heavy briefcase near Chaibasa Bus Stand. When signalled to stop, the person fled. He was chased and apprehended.

In the presence of witnesses and a Gazetted Officer, Prabir Kumar Bandopadhyay, the VIP briefcase was searched. Twelve polythene packs of what was described as ganja, weighing approximately 11 kg, were recovered. The case was registered under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act, and Special Case No. 12 of 2000 was instituted.

After the conclusion of trial, the Special Judge convicted Sunil Kumar Singh for offences under Sections 22(B), 20(B), and 11(B) of the NDPS Act. By judgment dated 20 July 2009 and sentence order dated 23 July 2009, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs. 50,000 with a default stipulation. He appealed to the High Court in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 726 of 2009.

The Sole Legal Question: What Did the FSL Actually Find?

Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, raised a single point of law. The FSL report dated 29 November 2002, admitted as Exhibit-6 during trial, specifically recorded that the seized substance contained “broken leaves of vegetable flowery substances” which were found to be bhang, not ganja. The FSL itself acknowledged that both ganja and bhang are cannabis, but that qualification did not resolve the legal question.

The argument was straightforward: bhang is excluded from the ambit of the NDPS Act as a punishable substance, and therefore the conviction and sentence were without legal basis.

The State, through Special P.P. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, countered that since the FSL report itself noted ganja and bhang are both cannabis, the substance fell within the NDPS Act's reach and the conviction required no interference.

How the Court Read Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act

Justice Srivastava turned to the text of Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act, which defines “cannabis (hemp)” in three limbs: (a) charas, being the separated resin obtained from the cannabis plant; (b) ganja, being the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, explicitly excluding seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops; and (c) any mixture of the above forms or any drink prepared therefrom.

The court observed that ganja leaves and seeds are expressly excluded from the definition of ganja under limb (b). Bhang is not referred to anywhere in the NDPS Act as a prohibited drink or prohibited drug. The court found that there was no scientific evidence before it to show that bhang is prepared out of either charas or ganja or ganja leaves so as to fall within limb (c).

The court also observed that the State Government had not made any rules under the NDPS Act naming bhang as a prohibitory drug, nor had it issued any notifications in that regard.

Four precedents from other High Courts were cited by the appellant's counsel: Roshan Kumar Mishra v. State of Karnataka by Beguru Police Station [2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1484] from the Karnataka High Court; Arjun Singh v. State of Haryana [2004 SCC OnLine P&H 828] from the Punjab and Haryana High Court; Madhukar v. State of Maharashtra [2002 SCC OnLine 1271] from the Bombay High Court; and Manjee v. State of Rajasthan [1996 SCC OnLine Raj 409] from the Rajasthan High Court. Justice Srivastava noted that all four courts had consistently held that bhang does not fall within the definition of cannabis (hemp) as defined under Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act, and that its possession does not constitute an offence punishable under the Act.

The Court's Reasoning and Finding

Drawing on the statutory text and the four High Court precedents, the court reached a clear conclusion: ganja and charas fall within the definition of cannabis (hemp) under the NDPS Act, but bhang is excluded. The relevant limbs of Section 2(iii) cover the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant and separated resin, not the leaves in a processed form that constitutes bhang.

In the present case, the allegation was of possession, not cultivation of a cannabis plant. The substance recovered was ultimately identified by the FSL as bhang. Since bhang is specifically excluded from the purview of the NDPS Act, the court held that the conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 22(B), 20(B), and 11(B) of the NDPS Act were “absolutely illegal and not justified under law.”

The court did not disturb the factual finding that a substance was recovered from the appellant. The decisive issue was entirely one of legal classification: what had been recovered did not, as a matter of law, fall within the class of substances whose possession the NDPS Act penalises.

Outcome

Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava allowed Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 726 of 2009 in its entirety. The conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-VI), Jamshedpur on 20 July 2009 and 23 July 2009 respectively in Special Case No. 12 of 2000 were set aside.

As the appellant was already on bail, the court ordered that he be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds and that the sureties also be discharged. Any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. A copy of the judgment and the trial court record were directed to be sent to the trial court for information and further action.