Bombay HC Highlights Definition of Ganja, Excludes Seeds and Leaves from NDPS Scope

Bombay HC Highlights Definition of Ganja, Excludes Seeds and Leaves from NDPS Scope

In a recent observation, the Bombay High Court clarified that the legal definition of ganja, as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, includes only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, excluding its seeds and leaves.

This clarification was made by a single-judge bench, Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke, while hearing the bail plea of Mohammad Jakir Nawab Ali.

“It is significant to note that the definition of ‘ganja’ under NDPS Act takes in its ambit only the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant and excludes the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. Thus, the definition of ‘ganja’ is restricted and it does not include the seeds and leaves of ganja plant,” the order reads.

Ali had been arrested in a police raid on December 7, 2021, where 50 kilograms of what was alleged to be ganja were found in a vehicle. Ali contended that the seized material comprised leaves, seeds, stems, and stalks—parts that do not meet the legal definition of ganja unless they are attached to flowering or fruiting tops. He further argued for his right to a speedy trial, citing delays in the case proceedings.

The court noted that the investigating officer had failed to distinguish between the parts of the plant when weighing the seized material, raising doubts about the exact quantity of ganja as per the NDPS Act's definition. The court's observation underscores the importance of proper classification and weighing in narcotics cases.

Accordingly, the high court granted bail to Ali while noting that, “Thus after perusal of the investigating papers, prima facie, the material complied with the charge[1]sheet, it is difficult to accept that the alleged prohibited substance is within the definition of ganja under the NDPS Act. Since the only flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant are classified as ganja, in absence of the said substance being seized from the applicant, prima facie involvement of the applicant is difficult to hold. Moreover, there is inordinate delay in conducting the trial and, therefore, the right of the accused of speedy trial is affected,” the order reads.

Case title: Mohammad Jakir Nawab Ali vs State of Maharashtra

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy