64
REPORT OF THE INDIAN HEMP DRUGS COMMISSION, 1893-94.
[APP.
No licenses to cultivate were granted in these 3 years, inasmuch as the rules of November
1878 did not provide for this formality: any one might cultivate, provided that he gave
written notice of his intention to do so.
Excise Act, 1881.
23. During the early part of the year 1881-82 the Bill which eventually became the Ex-
cise Act, 1881, was under consideration. The Act of 1871,
so far as it related to hemp-drugs, had been found wanting
in three important particulars, viz.:—
(1) It only empowered the Chief Commissioner to place cultivation, preparation, and
store under supervision—section 40.
(2) It did not make the mere importation without a license, irrespective of the quan-
tity of the drug imported, punishable—section 63.
(3) The punishments for illicit manufacture, sale, and possession were inadequate—sec-
tions 62, 63, 64.
The Chief Commissioner proposed to remedy the first and third defects by means of a
special clause worded as under:—
"In the Central Provinces—
(a) the cultivation of hemp,
(b) the manufacture of intoxicating drugs,
(c) possession of the intoxicating drugs,
(d) the import, export, and transport of intoxicating drugs,
are prohibited, except as permitted by this Act or by rules framed under this Act by the
local Government, which may grant such permission absolutely, or subject to the payment
of duty, or to any other condition."
The Bill, however, was considered by the Government of India to give all the powers
required for controlling cultivation, manufacture, and storage, and the second para. of section 11
of the Act corresponds word for word with that in the Bill; the wording is as follows:—
"In the other territories to which this Act extends, the chief revenue authority may,
from time to time, make such rules to restrict and regulate the cultivation of hemp and the
preparation of intoxicating drugs therefrom as it may deem necessary to secure the duty
leviable in respect of those drugs."
As for importation, it appears to have been thought that reduction of the quantity which
might be sold by retail and possessed by a private person from 20 to 5 tolas in the case of
ganja would meet all the requirements of the case. In the Bill as first drawn the limit of
quantity in respect of bhang also was reduced from 20 to 5 tolas, but in the Act the old limit
of 20 tolas is retained. The law as to import is therefore in the same state as under Act X
of 1871, the only difference being that a penalty is now provided (sections 20 and 42) for breach
of rules "to regulate the grant of licenses or passes to persons possessing or transporting
intoxicating drugs for the supply of licensed vendors," whereas formerly no punishment
was provided for breach of such rules. With regard to penalties, the Act of 1871 had
made offences in respect of hemp drugs punishable by fine only in the first instance, and
imprisonment in default of payment was in the civil, not in the criminal, jail, except in the
case of permitting drunkenness, etc., on shop premises. The new Act gave power to sentence
in respect of all such offences, except those under sections 40 and 41, to imprisonment of either
description extending to three or four months, in lieu of, or in addition to fine, and it contain-
ed no provision prescribing imprisonment in the civil jail for default of payment of fine.
1882-83.
24. In February 1882 rules regarding the cultivation, sale, transport and import of ganja
were made by the Chief Commissioner under sections 11, 13,
20, and 55 of the Act of 1881. They are printed as Appendix
G* to this Memorandum. Cultivation was thus definitely restricted to the tahsils of Katol and
Khandwa, and cultivators were required to obtain licenses and to deposit their crops in the
Government store-houses at the head-quarters of those tahsils.
The arrangements for raising the revenue in 1882-83 were in strict accord with these
rules, and, as they have not since been materially altered, it is worth while to give an account
of the main principles underlying them. In the first place the interests of cultivators demand-
ed that the monopoly of wholesale vend should no longer be left in the hands of a single
firm: accordingly wholesale vendors were appointed for each district separately. Next to protect
wholesale vendors, in case cultivators should combine for the purpose of exacting unfair prices
for their produce, import under passes from extra-provincial markets was permitted. Thirdly,
in order to ensure supply to retail vendors of a good marketable drug for consumption by
private persons, the rule introduced in 1881-82, that ganja, before being issued for retail sale,
should always be cleaned to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner, and that all result-
ing "bhang" or refuse should be immediately destroyed, was maintained. Monopolies of
retail vend were in most districts auctioned, the locality and number of shops being fixed
beforehand, and none being allowed except where a reasonable demand for the drug was
proved to exist. It will be remembered in this connection that the system of monthly licenses
*Not printed.