Sri Nanjaiah Vs State of Karnataka by

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXCISE POLICE STATION (H.D KOTE RANGE), MYSURU DISTRICT, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

SRI. SHIVARAJ .S EXCISE INSPECTOR (H.D KOTE RANGE) MYSORE DISTRICT - 571114

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:33142 CRL.P No. 12186 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SPL.C NO.133/2025 (CR NO.19/2024-25/4406IE/440606) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND COURT AT MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 20(I), 20(A), 25 OF NDPS ACT.

¶21

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against the petitioner in

¶25

SplC. No.133/2025 for the offences punishable under section 20(i), 20(a) and 25 of NDPS Act.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is as under:

¶27

The complainant, who is working as an Excise

¶28

Inspector, received credible information that a ganja plant was being cultivated on a vacant land situated behind the petitioner’s house. Acting upon the said information, he, along with other officials, conducted a raid on the said land. During the raid, one ganja plant measuring about 6.5

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33142 CRL.P No. 12186 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

feet in height and weighing approximately 1.530 kilograms was found amidst other vegetative growth. Based on this, the complainant lodged a report before respondent No.1, pursuant to which a crime was registered on 18.10.2024.

¶32

Upon completion of investigation, respondent No.1 filed a charge sheet naming the present petitioner as accused No.1.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that there is no material on record to establish that the petitioner had cultivated the seized ganja plant. He further submitted that the plant was not weighed in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolandaiswamy vs. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 275.

¶34

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the police have seized a ganja plant and the question regarding the quantity of cannabis involved is a matter to be adjudicated during trial. He

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:33142 CRL.P No. 12186 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

further argued that a charge sheet has been filed and prima facie materials disclose that the petitioner is guilty of cultivating the ganja plant.

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶39

petitioner and the learned HCGP. I have also perused the material placed on record.

¶40

The issue regarding the correct method of weighing a seized ganja plant is no longer res integra. The same has been comprehensively dealt with by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Chandrashekar vs. State of Karnataka(Crl.P.No.11138/2024). The relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:

¶41

"8. While it is a crime to permit cultivation of a cannabis crop in the residential premises, in the case at hand it is in the backyard amongst other weeds, general in nature. In such circumstances, considering identical issue, the Apex Court in the case of ALAKH RAM V. STATE OF U.P.¹ , has held as follows:

¶42

1 (2004)1 SCC 766

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:33142 CRL.P No. 12186 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

“ 4. We heard the appellant's counsel and the counsel for the respondent. Under Section 8(b) of the NDPS Act, cultivation of opium poppy or any cannabis plant is prohibited and under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, such cultivation of cannabis plant is made punishable with imprisonment and fine. In order to prove the guilt, it must be proved that the accused had cultivated this prohibited plant. 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. 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.

¶46

5. In the instant case, one witness was examined to prove the nature of the offence committed by the accused. It was PW 1 who accompanied the police officers to the appellant's field. The evidence given by PW 1 is to the following effect: “Alakh Ram is a farmer. I do not know the number of those fields. I do not know the number of that field in which ganja was sown. I do not know as to

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:33142 CRL.P No. 12186 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

who had cultivated the plants of ganja. That field is irrigated and Madho also works in that field. Neither have I seen anyone planting the ganja plants nor do I know when was it planted.

¶50

6. The above evidence is to be appreciated in the background of other evidence on record. Appellant Alakh Ram, his father and brothers owned 70 bighas of land. The prosecution has not produced any document to show that the property from which the ganja plants were uprooted belonged to appellant Alakh Ram exclusively. The witnesses who were examined in support of the prosecution also have not given any evidence to show that this property belongs to appellant Alakh Ram. There is no satisfactory evidence, either oral or documentary, to show that the appellant has a right over the property from which the ganja plants were recovered. There is no evidence that the appellant cultivated these ganja plants. Having regard to the extent of the property and the number of plants recovered from that property, it cannot be said that these plants had been the result of cultivation. They may have sprouted there by natural process and the

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:33142 CRL.P No. 12186 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

appellant or anybody who is the owner of the property must not have been diligent in destroying the plants. There is no evidence to prove that there was cultivation of ganja plants by the appellant and the Additional Sessions Judge wrongly convicted him as the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not carefully scrutinized by the Court. The High Court committed error in confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant. ”

¶54

(Emphasis supplied)

¶55

The Apex Court holds that plants sprouted by natural growth does not amount to cultivation. In the case before the Apex Court, there were 17 ganja plants seized, but it was weighed together. Following the said judgment, the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of KOLANDAISWAMY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA² , has held as follows:

¶56

“1. The petitioner is facing proceedings for an offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. It is alleged that the petitioner was caught in possession of 4 Kg. 350 Gms. of Ganja. But however in the complaint, which is in

¶57

2 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 275

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:33142 CRL.P No. 12186 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

the Kannada language it is indicated that what has been seized is “Ganja Soppu.” It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not only described as Ganja Soppu, but it also includes stems, roots and seeds. It is pointed out that Ganja as defined under the NDPS Act is categorical and it would not include leaves, seeds or other parts of the cannabis plant. Therefore, the candid description of the material seized not only includes the flowering tops but also leaves, stems and roots of the cannabis plant, which would put it outside the definition of Ganja under the Act. In other words, the Act requires the parts of the plant to be segregated. Since other parts of the plant are also included, it would result in futile proceedings.

¶61

2. The learned Government pleader would not dispute the position that Ganja has a particular definition under the NDPS Act and it would not include all the parts of the cannabis plant. Further the quantity seized which is stated to be 4 Kg 350 gms. consisted of all parts of the cannabis plant other than the flowering tops, which would be misleading and would result in the entire exercise being futile.

¶62

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:33142 CRL.P No. 12186 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

3. Accordingly, the petition is summarily allowed. The proceedings pending in Spl. Case No. 19/2016 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, stands quashed.”

¶65

(Emphasis supplied)"

¶66

8. On a careful perusal of the material placed

¶67

along with the charge sheet, it becomes evident that the seized plant was weighed in its entirety, without undertaking any process of segregation. No distinction was made between the leaves, flowering or fruiting tops, stems, or other portions of the plant. The weighing was carried out as a whole, which is in clear contravention of the procedure contemplated by law and the principles enunciated by this Court in the judgment extracted hereinabove. The settled position is that, for the purpose of determining whether the seized substance falls within the definition of “ganja” under the NDPS Act and for ascertaining its quantity, only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops are to be taken into account.

¶68

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:33142 CRL.P No. 12186 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Further, there is an absolute absence of

¶71

material to establish that it was the petitioner who had cultivated the plant in question. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to connect the petitioner with the act of cultivation. In the absence of proof regarding conscious possession or active involvement of the petitioner, the mere recovery of a plant from a vacant land situated behind his house, without more, cannot by itself warrant the continuation of criminal proceedings.

¶72

For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶73

ORDER

¶74