IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2636 of 2004. Date of Decision : 7.3.2011. State of Haryana ......Petitioner Versus Ramesh ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Advocate, for the petitioner-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) On June 30th, 2004 Ramesh-respondent was apprehended at Shivpuri Chowk, Panipat by Ajit Singh-Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police station City, Panipat having 1 kg leaves of Bhang. He was challaned under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'). Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat by order dated July 29th, 2004 discharged the respondent on the ground that Bhang is not a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and is not punishable under the NDPS Act. The State by filing the present revision has challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The solitary question which arises for adjudication in this case is: whether 'Bhang' falls under the definition of cannabis (hemp) as defined under Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act? In Arjun Singh vs. State of Haryana 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 506, this Court has authoritatively held that 'Bhang' is not covered under the definition of cannabis (hemp). State counsel could not cite any contrary judgment/provision of law in support of the revision. Thus, the question formulated is answered that the respondent did not commit an offence punishable under section 20 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in discharging the respondent. The revision petition is dismissed. 7.3.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE