G. HEERU @ HEERALAL & ORS. Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners are said to be accused facing proceedings for offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act', for brevity). It transpires that the police had received secret information on 3.7.2015 about 1.30 p.m. that three persons, namely the petitioners herein, would be travelling from Warrangal to Bangalore in a Swift Dzire vehicle bearing No.AP-28-CC-1929 and that they were carrying contraband. It was informed that they would reach Devanahalli Toll Gate at around 3 p.m. on 3.7.2015. On receiving such information, a team of the Narcotic Crime Bureau (NCB) officers including a lady official, were constituted under the directions of the Superintendent, NCB, Bangalore, and at about 3.15 p.m., the team reached Devanahalli Toll Gate and enlisted two persons as panch witnesses. At about 3.30 p.m., the car which they were expecting had arrived and it was intercepted and the occupants of the car were searched and the car itself was searched and it was found that it contained 20 packets of 'ganja' wrapped in brown tapes and five big cloth packets in the -boot space of the vehicle. A small quantity of the 'ganja' seized from each of the packets was subjected to analysis with a drug detection kit, which proved positive for 'cannabis' and on a reasonable belief that the entire quantity seized was 'ganja', the entire packets were seized from the possession of the petitioners. The quantity seized from the five big cloth packets were put in three gunny bags and were weighing 11 kgs, 16 kgs and 12 kgs respectively. Similarly, the quantity seized from the 20 packets were put in three gunny bags and were weighing 14 kgs, 16 kgs and 15 kgs respectively. The above said bags were marked as PI to P6 and further proceedings were taken against the petitioners. The petitioners are presently said to be facing trial and the trial is well underway. It is at that stage that the present petition is filed seeking that the proceedings be quashed on the primary ground that what has been seized as 'cannabis' or 'ganja', not only included the 'ganja' as defined under the NDPS Act, but included other parts of the ganja plant or the cannabis plant and there was no segregation of the ganja from other parts of the plant, which are not considered as 'ganja' in the eye of law. Therefore, in the absence of a specification of the quantity whether it is large commercial quantity or small quantity for purposes of punishing the petitioners, the entire trial would be a futile effort, as there was no such exercise carried out of segregating the 'ganja' which in the eye of law is considered as 'ganja' and the entire parts of the plant cannot be treated as ganja and this according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is well-settled and there are a catena of decisions of this court on this point and therefore seeks that the proceedings be quashed.

(3.) This however is a belated prayer, since it was open for the petitioners to have urged this ground even at the time of framing of charges and once the charges have been framed and the trial is on, it would not be prudent for this court to quash the proceedings at this stage. The contention however is left open and it is for the court below to take this into account in deciding the case as to the guilt or otherwise of the petitioners. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.