Gyanendra Kumar, J. - (1.) In the present criminal revision against conviction Under Sec. 60(a) of the UP Excise Act, B.D. Gupta, referred the following question for consideration by a larger Bench: Can an accused person be properly convicted for the offence of having bean found in possession of Ganja on the testimony of an Excise officer, on the basis of sight and smell, that the recovered article was Ganja, or is it necessary for the prosecution to lead evidence based on chemical analysis to establish that the article alleged to have been recovered was Ganja?
(2.) The definition of Ganja is given in Rule 15 of the UP Excise Manual, Part II, Ch. I, which runs thus: Ganja means the dried flowering tops of the female hemp plant which have become coated with resin in consequence of being unimpregnated and therefore, unable to set seeds freely.
(3.) The facts of the case are that Smt. Manjauka and Ramjas Applicants are mother and son, living in village Dharampur, Distt. Jaunpur. On 29 -12 -1967 1957, at about 6 p.m. their house was searched by P.W. R.N. Tripathi, Excise Inspector Circle II, Jaunpur in the presence of Manjauka accused and certain search witnesses, with the result that 6 -1/4 seers of alleged Nepali ganja was recovered from the house of these accused from two places in the same room. The Excise Inspector considered the recovered commodity to be ganja by sight and smell. In his test report (Ex -ka -2) the Excise Inspector mentioned that he considered the recovered commodity as contraband Nepali ganja as its colour was brownish green and it had characteristic texture of ganja. He added that "this is the flowering top of female hemp plant." He further noted that the commodity had the special type of ganja smell.;