Summary of discussion:

under the definition of Ganja under Section 2(iii)

(b) of the NDPS Act 1985 16 Points for determination 15.A 17 General Discussion on the compliance of Section 16 – 16.5 42 of the NDPS Act 18 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.6 – 16.6.6 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 19 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.7 – 16.7.2 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023 20 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.8 – 16.8.4 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 21 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.9 – 16.9.2 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2023 22 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.10 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.396, 397, 399 & 400 of 2023 23 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.11-16.11.2 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.507 of 2023 & 94 of 2024 24 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.12-16.12.2 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2022 13/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 25 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.13 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 26 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.14-16.14.2 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 27 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.15-16.15.2 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.724 of 2023 28 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.16-16.16.3 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.773, 953 of 2023 & 265 of 2024 29 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.17-16.17.3 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.322 of 2023 30 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the 16.18-16.18.2 NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.269 & 558 of 2023 31 General Discussion on the compliance of Section 17-17.4.4 50 of the NDPS Act .

32 Consideration of the precedents 17.5-17.7 33 General Discussion on the presence of the Crime 18-18.6 Number in the sample or arrest memo 34 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the 19-19.3 independent witnesses 35 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the 19.3.1 independent witnesses in Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023 36 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the 19.3.2 independent witnesses in Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 37 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the 19.3.3 independent witnesses in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 38 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the 19.3.4 independent witnesses in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773, 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024 39 Discussion on the delay in producing the 20-20.3 contraband 14/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 40 Discussion on the delay in producing the 20.3.1 contraband in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 41 Discussion on the delay in producing the 20.3.2 contraband in Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 42 Discussion on the delay in producing the 20.3.3 contraband in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 43 Discussion on the compliance of Section 52 A of 20.4 – 20.4.3 NDPS Act 44 Discussion on maintainability of the conviction 21 – 21.2 under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act after acquittal under Section 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

45 Discussion on the maintainability of conviction in 23 – 23.1 all cases under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act without proof of recovered contraband with flowering or fruiting tops of Ganja 46 Submission of the appellant counsel 23.2 – 23.2.2 47 Submission of the learned Additional Public 23.3 – 23.3.3 Prosecutor 48 Reply argument by the learned counsel for the 23.4 – 23.4.2 appellants 49 Discussion on the Taxonomy 23.5 – 23.5.3.4 50 Discussion on Pharmacology of Hemp 23.6 – 23.6.8 51 History of Penal provision of the Hemp 23.7 – 23.8.6 cultivation 52 Principles to interpret the provision of NDPS Act 23.9 – 23.9.2 1985 53 Discussion on the definition of Ganja 23.10 – 23.10.12 54 Burden of proof 23.11 – 23.11.6 55 Calculation of the weight 23.12 – 23.12.5 56 Parity 23.13 57 Discussion on the merits of the case 23.14-23.14.8 15/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 58 Discussion on the principle of Hirasingh Case 23.15 – 23.18 59 Conclusion on conviction 24 – 24.2 60 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment 25 61 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.1 Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 62 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.2 Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023 63 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.3 Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 64 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.4 Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2023 65 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.5-25.5.4 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.396, 397, 399 and 400 of 2023 66 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.6-25.6.2 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.507 of 2023 and 94 of 2024 67 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.7 Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2022 68 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.8 Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 69 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.9 Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 70 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.10 Crl.A.(MD).No.742 of 2023 71 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.11-25.11.3 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773, 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024 72 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.12 Crl.A.(MD).No.322 of 2023 73 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.3 – 25.3.2 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.269 and 558 of 2023 74 Details of the modified conviction and sentence of 26 imprisonment 75 Final conclusion in each appeal 27- 27.13 16/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) Prelude:

Sl.N Criminal Appeal No. Subject matter of appeal o 1 Crl.A.(MD).No.212 The appellant/sole accused in C.C.No.365 of of 2020 2019 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 21 kg of ganja and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment.

2 Crl.A.(MD).No.172 The appellant/Sole Accused in C.C.No.429 of of 2023 2019 on the file of the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dated 12.03.2021, has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 24 kg of ganja and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment 20/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 3 Crl.A.(MD).No.293 The appellant/sole accused in C.C.No.428 of of 2021 2019 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 22 kg of ganja and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment 4 Crl.A.(MD).No.331 The appellant/Sole Accused in C.C.No.337 of of 2023 2021 on the file of the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai dated 22.11.2022, has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 22 kg of ganja and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 12 months Simple Imprisonment 5 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.396, The accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.160 of 2016 on 397, 399 & 400 of the file of the learned II Additional Special 2023 Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, have filed these Criminal Appeals before this Court challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 30 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 12 months Simple Imprisonment.

21/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 6 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.507 The appellants/A2 & A1 in C.C.No.30 of 2022 on of 2023 and 94 of the file of the Additional District and Sessions 2024 Court/Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, dated 26.05.2023, have filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 22 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 12 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment.

7 Crl.A.(MD).No.534 The appellant/Sole Accused in C.C.No.138 of of 2023 2020 on the file of I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 22 kg of ganja and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.

1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.

8 Crl.A.(MD).No.551 The appellants/Accused No.1&2 in C.C.No.333 of 2023 of 2016 on the file of District and Sessions Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai, have filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 22 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment each.

22/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 9 Crl.A.(MD).No.588 The appellants/A1 & A2 in Crl.A(MD)No.588 of of 2023 2023 are the accused in Special C.C.No.403 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, have filed this appeal challenging the conviction for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 21kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment.

10 Crl.A.(MD).No.724 The appellants/A1 & A2 in Spl.C.C.No.192 on of 2023 the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dated 18.11.2022, have filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 21 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment each.

11 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773 The appellants/A2, A3, A1 & A4 in C.C.No.308 & 953 of 2023 and of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Special 265 of 2024 Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, have filed these appeals, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act , for the alleged illegal possession of 23 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.

23/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 12 Crl.A.(MD).No322 of The appellant in C.C.No.59 of 2016 on the file of 2023 the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai have filed these appeals, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 , for the alleged illegal possession of 25 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.

1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.

13. Crl.A.(MD).No269 & The accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.228 of 2013 558 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai have filed these appeals, challenging the conviction for the offence under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for the alleged illegal possession of 25 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.

2. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020:

Thereafter, at about 09.30 a.m, P.W.1, P.W.2 and other police officers went to the spot with necessary equipment and keeping the surveillance. The appellant was carrying one gunny bag on his shoulder near the said Athoor Junction Road. The informant identified the appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.2 intercepted the appellant and introduced themselves as police officers and he was informed about his right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellant consented to conduct search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.2 conducted search in the gunny bag, which was carried by the appellant in the presence of P.W.1 and other police officers. He found ganja in the said bag and weighed entire contraband and took the sample of S1, S2 from the said bag and properly sealed the same. He also properly sealed the remaining contraband. Thereafter, he arrested the appellant. The appellant also gave a confession and the same was reduced into writing by P.W.2 and he brought the accused to the police station along with the entire contraband and sample and registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of NDPS Act and submitted a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act. 25/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) Following the same, P.W.2 entrusted the custody of the accused to P.W.3 along with the contraband, sample and report under Section 57 of the Act. The Inspector of Police produced the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Dindigul, along with the recovered contraband and samples which were taken from the said contraband on 30.03.2019 itself at 08.30 p.m and made a request to remand him. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant to judicial custody on 30.03.2019. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted the investigation and filed the final report before the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.365 of 2019.

2.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summon to the accused and on his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.

2.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.3, exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12 and produced 3 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused 26/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the defence, no one was examined as witness and no document was marked. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act , and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act . Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.

2.2.The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:-

Therefore, he seeks for acquittal.

2.2.2. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that there was a delay of 4 days in producing the contraband before Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, and the same was not properly explained. Therefore, there was reasonable doubt over the seizure of contraband and taking of samples from the contraband from the recovered material. Therefore, he seeks for acquittal.

2.2.3. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the place of recovery was busy area and no independent witness has been examined in order to believe the story of recovery of 21 kg of ganja from the appellant.

28/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 2.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:-

3.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

After arrival at the occurrence place, the informant identified the appellant, who carried the contraband in a gunny bag over his head and thereafter, P.W.1 and other police officials intercepted the appellant and introduced 30/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) themselves as police officers and he was informed about his right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellant consented to conduct the search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.1 conducted search and found that he was in possession of 24 kg of Ganja in a gunny bag. Thereafter, P.W.1 recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took the samples of (each 50 grams) S1 and S2 and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, P.W.1 arrested the appellant. The appellant also gave a confession and the same was also recorded and he was brought to the police station and FIR was registered in Crime No.101 of 2019 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of NDPS Act . After that, P.W.1 handed over the custody of accused to P.W.3 along with the contraband with a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act. P.W.3 took the accused along with contraband to learned Judicial Magistrate requesting for remand and after completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted investigation and he entrusted the investigation with Deputy Superintendent of Police PW4 and PW4 continued the investigation and filed the final report before the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.429 of 2019. 31/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 3.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

3.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12 and produced 3 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the defence, no one was examined as witness and no document was marked.

3.1.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act , and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 6 months 32/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act . Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.

3.2.The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:-

4.1.The brief facts of the case is as follows:

P.W.1 and the other police officials intercepted the appellant and introduced themselves as police officers and he was informed about his right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellant consented to conduct search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.1 conducted search of 36/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) the sack carried by the appellant, in the presence of P.W.2 and other police officers. He found possession of ganja in the said sack and weighed the entire contraband and took samples S1, S2 from the said sack and properly sealed the same. He also properly sealed the remaining contraband. Thereafter, he arrested the appellant. The appellant also gave a confession and the same was recorded by P.W.1. P.W.1 brought the accused to the police station along with the entire contraband and sample and registered a case in Crime No.85 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)

(ii) (C) of NDPS Act and prepared a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act. Following the same, P.W.1 entrusted the custody of the accused to P.W.3 along with the contraband, sample and report under Section 57 of the Act. The Inspector of Police produced the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, along with the recovered contraband and samples taken from the said contraband on 10.06.2019 and requested to remand him. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant to judicial custody and conducted the investigation. Thereafter, P.W.4 continued the investigation and filed the final report before the learned I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.428 of 2019. 37/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 4.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

4.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.4, exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12 and produced 3 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the defence, no one was examined as witness and no document was marked.

4.1.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act , and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 6 months 38/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act . Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.

4.2.Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant :-

According to P.W.1, he received the secret information and made entry in the General Diary and the same was not produced and only Ex.P.1 was produced with delay. Therefore, there was doubt over the compliance of Section 42 of the Act. There were discrepancies between the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 about the receipt of the information. Further, no material was produced to prove that the immeidate superior acknowledged the said information. Therefore, there was non-compliance of the mandatory procedure stated in the Section 42 of the Act.

4.2.2. The recovered contraband was produced before the Court with delay and there was no explanation on the side of the prosecution and hence, recovery is doubtful.

39/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 4.3. Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:-

It contains the strict compliance as mandated under Section 42 of the Act. When the examination of the witness took place after number of years from the date of recovery, some minor discrepancies would always tend to occur in the prosecution evidence.

4.3.2. He would submit that the entire contraband and the sample were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate at the time of the remand without any delay. The learned Judicial Magistrate verified and directed to produce the same before the Special Court. Therefore, the delay in producing the contraband before the Special Court is immaterial when the materials were properly sealed and the same is intact.

4.3.3.Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in all aspects, the prosecution clearly proved the case and hence, he prayed for dismissal of appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge.

40/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm )

5. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in in Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2023:

1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 12 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act . Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.

5.2. The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:-

6. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.396, 397, 399 and 400 of 2023:

After receipt of the said information, he recorded the same and reduced it in writing under Ex.P.4, in the General Diary and informed the same to his superior/P.W.3 and obtained permission and went to the occurrence place along with P.W.1, and other team members besides the informer. The informer identified all the appellants and went away and they enquired them and they disclosed their names and address. Thereafter, the police team rounded up the appellants and made a search on them under Ex.P1/Search Consent Letter. All the appellants were found in possession of two travel bags and one gunny bag with Ganja. The police team recovered the contraband of 30 Kgs of Ganja from the travel bags and one 45/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) gunny bag DPS Act and properly sealed the contraband and the bag and the remaining contraband and they prepared Seizure Mahazar under Ex.P2. Thereafter, they arrested the accused under Ex.P3/Arrest Intimation Letter and took them to the Station and registered the case in Crime No.139 of 2015 under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 27A and 29(1) of NDPS Act , and produced the accused along with the contraband before the learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W.3 continued the investigation and he filed the final report after obtaining the chemical analysis report and examining number of witnesses. The learned trial Judge has taken the same on file in C.C.No. 160 of 2016.

6.1.2. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellants, framed charges under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act 1985 and the same was read over and explained to them and on being questioned, the accused/appellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

46/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 6.1.3.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 3 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3, exhibited 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and marked fourteen material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.14.

6.1.4.When the accused was examined under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against them, they denied the evidence as false. On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 to prove that there was Outpost police station at the Arappalayam Police Station, but no one was examined from there.

6.1.5.The learned Trial Judge, considering the materials and circumstances found that accused in C.C.No.160 of 2016 were guilty and passed the conviction and sentence as against the appellants as stated above.

6.2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in in Crl.A. (MD).Nos.6, 397, 399 and 400 of 2023 made the following submissions:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) According to the learned counsel, Section 42 was not complied with and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants are liable to be set aside.

6.2.2. The learned counsel further contended that PW2 claims to have received the secret information and informed the same through cellphone, but the evidence on record shows that they informed in writing. According to P.W.2, they received the information and informed the same to the higher officer/P.W.3. But, there was no corresponding endorsement to prove the same.

6.2.3.There was inordinate delay in producing the contraband from the Magistrate to the Special Court and the same was not properly explained and hence, there is a doubt over the recovery of the contraband.

6.2.4.Even though the occurrence took place in the bus stand, no independent witness was examined. Apart from that, even when the outpost police station was there, no police officer was examined from there. Therefore, there is a doubt over the recovery of the contraband. 48/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 6.2.5.Except A1, all the accused are illiterate. In the Athatchi/Ex.P2, they obtained signature and thumb impression of the accused without reading over the contents of Athatchi to them. Even as per the allegation, A1 brought the huge quantity of Ganja from Andra Pradesh and handed over to A2 to A4 and hence, there is no conscious possession on the part of A2 to A4. Hence, he seeks for acquittal.

6.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police made the following submissions:

7.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Q-1508 near Amma Poonga, Sethupathi Nagar. Thereafter, P.W.1 reduced the said information in writing under Ex.P.1 and informed the same to his Immediate Superior. Thereafter, at about 10.15 a.m, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 to P.W.4 went to the spot with necessary equipment. After arrival at the occurrence place, the informant identified the car and the appellants who came in a car from the North direction of Amma Poonga, and left the place. Thereafter, P.W.1 and other police officials intercepted the car. On seeing the Police party, the first appellant/A2 tried to escape from the car and during such attempt, he sustained injuries on his both thighs. However, P.W.1 and his team nabbed him and introduced themselves as police officers and they were informed about their right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of 50/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) the NDPS Act . The appellants consented to conduct the search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.1 conducted search and found that they were in possession of 24 kg of Ganja in a gunny bag. Thereafter, P.W.1 recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took the samples S1 and S2 (each 50 grams) and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, P.W.1 arrested the appellants. The appellants also gave confession and the same was also recorded and he brought the accused to the police station and registered the FIR in Crime No.919 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of NDPS Act . After that, P.W.1 handed over the custody of the accused with P.W.6 along with the contraband and submitted a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act. P.W.6 produced the accused along with contraband before the Learned Judicial Magistrate and after completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.6 conducted investigation and filed the final report before the Additional District and Sessions Court/Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.30 of 2022.

7.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and framed 51/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

7.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.6, exhibited 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P10 and produced 4 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the defence, no one was examined as witness and no document was marked.

7.1.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 25 of the NDPS Act and convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act , and sentenced him to undergo 12 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand only) in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) 52 /267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act . Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed against them, present appeal has been filed.

7.2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all appeals made the following submissions:-

According to them, P.W.1 who claims to have received a secret information has admitted that he has not made entry in the General Diary and also not recorded the said information. In the said circumstances, without recording the information, there was no strict compliance under Section 42 of the Act.

7.2.2. The learned counsels for the appellants also submitted that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. According to him, contraband was recovered in a gunny bag and the total quantity of recovery is 22 kg and there was no weighing of the bag, leaves and seeds separately.

7.2.3. There is a delay in producing the contraband before the Court and the same was not properly explained.

53/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 7.2.4. The presence of the crime number in the material objects before registration of the case creates doubt over the recovery at the spot.

7.2.5. There was no compliance under Section 52(A) of the Act. As per Section 52A of the NDPS Act, all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances should have been disposed of. To prove the same, no document was produced before this Court and hence, he seeks acquittal.

7.2.6. A2 is a driver and he has no knowledge about the possession of ganja in the car and there is no material to connect him.

7.2.7. He has sustained injuries and the same was not properly explained. Hence, his specific case that he was arrested much earlier to the occurrence is a probable.

7.2.8. The learned trial Judge, acquitted the appellants under Section 25 of the NDPS Act and there was no appeal filed on the side of the prosecution. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the appellants conspired and carried the contraband, which comes under the commercial quantity, is not correct.

54/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 7.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:-

The same were produced before the Court at the time of trial and also marked as MO.1 to MO.3 and the same was identified by P.W.1 and P.W.2 55/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) to P.W.4. The same was also deposed by P.W.1 and P.W.2 to P.W.4 also.

When P.W.1 and P.W.2 to P.W.4 deposed about the remaining contraband and identified the same before the Court, requirement of compliance under Section 52A of the NDPS Act does not arise in this case.

7.3.4. A2 has sustained injuries and the same was clearly explained in the report and also through the evidence of P.W.1. When he made an attempt to escape from the scene of occurrence, he fell down and sustained injuries and there was no contrary evidence adduced on the side of the accused. The accused/A2 was the driver and he drove the vehicle with contraband. Therefore, his claim of innocense has to be rejected. Hence, he prayed to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge by dismissing the appeal.

8. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2022:

They opened the two bags and found that there was 22 kg of Ganja. Thereafter, they recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took the samples S1 and S2 (each 25 grams) and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, he arrested the appellants.

8.1.2. The appellant also gave confession and the same was recorded. After that, P.W.2 handed over the accused along with contraband and a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act, to P.W.3. P.W.3 57/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) produced the accused along with contraband after FIR was registered in Crime No.22 of 2020 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act before the jurisdictional magistrate. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted the investigation and P.W.4 continued the investigation and filed the final report before the I Additional District Court for NDPS Act Cases at Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.138 of 2020. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned him. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

8.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.4, exhibited 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P14 and produced 8 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.8. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 58/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 8.1.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act , and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act .

8.1.5. The learned trial Judge, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as stated supra. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

8.2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted the following submissions:-

General Diary is a material document and the same was not produced. 59/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) Even P.W.2 & P.W.3 never deposed about the compliance of section 42 of the Act. More particularly, P.W.3 never deposed about the receipt of the information furnished by P.W.2 and his endorsement was made in Ex.P.5, intimation to raid and search. Hence, the prosecution never proved the requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Hence, without any substantive evidence before the Court, there was no compliance of Section 42 except mere marking of Ex.P.5.

8.2.2. The learned counsel further submitted that the sample is packed with a slip containing crime number. Therefore, the recovery of the sample at the spot is suspicious.

8.3 Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:

9.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Thereafter, at about 10.40 a.m, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 went with necessary equipment to place called Paramathevar Garden situated at Usilampatti – Elumalai Road. In the said circumstances, the informant identified the 61/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) appellants and thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.2 intercepted the appellants and introduced themselves as police officers and they were informed about their right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellants consented to conduct the search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.1 conducted search and found 100 plastic bags, two gunny bags and two cell phones. They recovered the same and opened the gunny bags and found that there was 22 kg of Ganja. Thereafter, they recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took the samples S1 and S2 (each 50 grams) and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, he arrested the appellants. The appellants also gave confession and the same was recorded. After that, P.W.2 handed over the accused along with contraband and a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act, to P.W.3. P.W.3 produced the accused along with contraband after FIR was registered in Crime No.81 of 2016 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 27(A) and 29(1) of NDPS Act before the jrisdictional magistrate. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellants. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted the investigation and filed the final report before the District and Sessions Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.333 of 2016. 62/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 9.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

9.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12 and marked 6 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.6. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellants. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act , and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act . Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed. 63/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 9.2. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant :-

10.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

10.1.2. Since A1 in C.C.No.403 of 2022 was absconding, the trial was commenced as against the remaining accused/appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.588 of 2023.

10.1.3. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

10.1.4. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and exhibited 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P14 and marked 2 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.2. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating 68/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellants. On the side of the appellants, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

10.1.5. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act , and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act .

10.1.6. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge, the appellants filed the said Crl.A(MD)No.588 of 2023.

10.2.Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023:

11.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Thereafter, P.W.2 and other police officials intercepted the Auto and found two persons in that Auto. P.W.2 and other police officials introduced themselves as police officers and they were informed about their right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellants consented to conduct the search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.2 conducted search and found 21 kg of Ganja in a white coloured bag in the backside seat of the Auto. Thereafter, P.W.2 recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took the samples S1 and S2 (each 50 grams) and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, P.W.2 arrested the appellants. The appellants also gave a confession and the same was also recorded. The accused were 72/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) brought to the police station and registered an FIR in Crime No.636 of 2016 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of NDPS Act . After that, P.W.2 handed over the accused along with contraband and a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act to PW3. P.W.3 produced the accused along with contraband before the Learned Judicial Magistrate and after completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted investigation and he entrusted the investigation with PW4 and PW4 continued the investigation and filed the final report before the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.192 of 2017.

11.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

11.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.5, exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P13 and marked 4 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under 73/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellants. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in.

11.1.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act , and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act . Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.

11.2. The learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions:-

Hence, compliance under Section 42 of the Act was clearly proved. 75/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 11.3.2. The conviction under Section 8(C) r/w 20(2)(ii)(C) of the NDPS is maintainable when the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.1 are cogent and trustworthy in respect of the recovery of the contraband in the Auto, in which the convicted appellants were the occupants. He also submitted that there is no bar to convict the appellants under Section 8(C) r/w 20(2)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act , and the same is an independent provision. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge.

12. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773 & 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024:

Further, the learned trial Judge has committed error in convicting A1 to A4 under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act , after acquitting A5 to A7.

81/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 12.2.9. Considering the age of the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.953 of 2023 and being a lady there is no evidence to prove her conscious possession and the learned counsel seeks to reduce the sentence by altering the conviction under Section 8(C) r/w 20(2)(ii)(B) of the NDPS. They relied on 2001 (1) MWN (Crl) 41, 2020 9 SCC 202, 2017 15 SCC 684 and un-reported judgment of this Court, in Crl.A.No.90 of 2012 and Crl.A.No. 70 of 2016.

12.3. The submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:-

13.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

He recorded the said information under Ex.P1, and informed the same to his superior officer, obtained permission and went to the occurrence place along with his team and the informer. The informer identified the accused 84/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) who was coming along with the white colour plastic gunny bag. Thereafter, P.W.2 caught the appellant and made a search on him under Ex.P1/Search Consent Letter and recovered the contraband of 25 Kgs of Ganja in the white colour plastic Gunny Bag and took the sample following the procedure stated under the NDPS Act . Thereafter, he arrested the accused and brought him to the Station and registered the case and produced the accused for remand along with the contraband before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the investigation was continued by the investigating officer and he filed the final report after obtaining the chemical analysis report and examining number of witnesses. The learned trial Judge has taken the same on file in C.C.No.59 of 2016.

13.1.2. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellant, framed charges under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act 1985 and the same was read over and explained to him and on being questioned, the accused/appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

85/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 13.1.3.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 3 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3, exhibited 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and marked three material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. When the accused was examined under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against him, he denied the evidence as false and further stated that a false case was foisted against him. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witness on his side.

13.1.4.The learned Trial Judge, considering the materials and circumstances found that accused in C.C.No.59 of 2016 was guilty under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and passed the conviction and sentence against the appellant as stated above. Challenging the same the present appeal came to be filed.

13.2.The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:

There are material discrepancies relating to Ex.P2/Seizure Mahazar and Ex.P7/Form 91 relating to the enclosure cover of the material object. Therefore, there is a suspicion relating to drawing of samples at the place of occurrence.

87/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 13.2.5.Even though, in the occurrence place number of private individuals were available, non examination of the private individual vitiates the recovery.

13.2.6.There was total non compliance of Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2024) 14 SCC 222 and Mohd. Khalid v. State of Telangana reported in (2024) 5 SCC 393 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Mareeswaran vs. The Inspector of Police reported in 2023 (2) L.W. Crl. 893and hence the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

13.2.7.There was no compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act, 1985. There was a delay of 48 days in sending the sample to the FSL. In Ex.P2, S1 and S2, namely, the samples weight was mentioned as 25 grams each and in the FSL report/Ex.P10 the weight of the sample was stated as 23 grams and 20 grams. Therefore, there is a doubt over the recovered samples sent to the FSL office and hence, he seeks benefit of doubt to be given to the accused.

88/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 13.2.8.Further, he would submit that all the mahazar witnesses, namely, police officers were not examined and hence, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the prosecution.

13.2.9.In the FSL report, there was no specific mentioning about the presence of the tetrahydrocannabinol and in the absence of specific percentage of the tetrahydrocannabinol, the conviction under Section 22

(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 treating the contraband as commercial quantity is not legally maintainable, for which, he relied upon number of judgments of various Courts.

13.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) Hence, he seeks for the confirmation of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below.

13.3.7.The strange argument made by the counsel relating to the absence of the tetrahydrocannabinol in the chemical analysis report is misconceived one, especially when the NDPS Act , only required the presence of cannabis. The same was found in the FSL report. Therefore, the said contention can not be accepted.

14.1 The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No.269 and 558 of 2023:

Toa rpwpa ,iyfs;” and the said description denotes flowering tops and he seeks time to address the issue in detail.

3.The said issue has its own significance and any decision is likely to have its impact on the pending huge number of cases in Tamil Nadu.

Therefore, this Court inclines to give time to address the issue in order to provide opportunity to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

4.Accordingly, the case is adjourned to 27.06.2025 finally. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is hereby directed to get instruction in addition to the argument on the above legal 96/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) aspects:-

16. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 of the NDPS Act:

In this case, Ex.P.6 was produced to prove the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the same was not objected by the defence at the time of marking. Ex. P6 contains four material things:-

Therefore, sitting in the armchair, this Court cannot expect the witness to depose before the Court with photographic memory. Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution clearly established the strict compliance of Section 42 of the Act, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2 & Ex.P.6. 106/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not complied with the requirement of Section 42 of the Act.

16.7. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A. (MD).No.172 of 2023:-

P.W.3 acknowledged the same and deposed that he received the 111/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) information and directed to proceed for search. The said evidence is cogent and trustworthy and the content of Ex.P.1 is as follows:-

Therefore, this Court finds compliance of Section 42 of the Act.

16.10. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A. (MD).No.396,397,399,400 of 2023:-

Therefore, sitting in the armchair, this Court cannot expect the witness to depose before the Court with photographic memory.

16.16.3. Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution clearly established the strict compliance of Section 42 of the Act, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. 123/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 16.17. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD) No. 322 of 2023:

17.1. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the searching officer made a search on the body of the accused and also the bag of the accused and the officers should have strictly complied the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The searching officer has given joint search option to all the accused. In the said alleged search memo, they had not obtained the signature of all the accused. Therefore in this case, there is no compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act.

17.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that if the contraband was recovered either from the bag of the accused or vehicle of the accused, the compliance of the section 50 of NDPS Act need not be followed. As per the evidence of the searching officer and the member of the searching team, they gave clear option orally about the right to be searched before the Gazetted officer or learned nearby Judicial Magistrate and thereafter they reduced it into writing. Oral option itself is compliance 127/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) of section 50 of NDPS Act. Two Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court never insisted to prepare individual consent letter and the only requirement is to inform their right. When the evidence are cogent and trustworthy about the oral information of the right of the accused to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted officer or learned nearby Judicial Magistrate, failure of the searching officer to obtain signature in the joint consent letter is not a ground to hold that section 50 of NDPS Act was not complied with to seek acquittal.

17.3. To consider the non compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act, this court likes to summarise the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court based on the Hon’ble Constitution Bench in the case of:

In order to make a search of such type of objects, the body of the carrier will not come in contact of the person conducting the search. Such objects cannot be said to be inextricably connected with the person, namely, the body of the human being. 130/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) Inextricable means incapable of being disentangled or untied or forming a maze or tangle from which it is impossible to get free.” 17.4.3. The view taken in the case of Pawan Kumar has been reaffirmed once again by the Hon'ble Constitution Bench in the case of Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat reported in (2011) 1 SCC 609.

17.4.4. Inspite of the clear law laid down by the Hon'ble larger Bench of Supreme Court, once again there was some cleavage in the Hon'ble two judges bench of Supreme Court with respect to the applicability of section 50 NDPS Act in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345 and Hon'ble Three Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K.Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga V. State of West Bengal reported in 2019 (1) SCC (CRI) 371. The Hon'ble Two Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of “Ranjan Kumar Chadha Versus State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1262” made a detailed discussion upon referring various decisions and formulated guidelines with regard to the circumstances under which section 50 of the NDPS has no application.

131/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 17.5. From the consideration of the above precedents, the following principles have evolved:-

“i) In cases involving number of accused, the prosecution had produced evidence to prove the compliance of the section 50 of NDPS Act by giving oral communication in unequivocal terms and the case of the accused that they had been deprived of their right under section 50 of NDPS Act in view of the joint consent letter cannot be accepted for the reason that the Hon’ble Constitution Bench in “Baldev Singh”, “Pawan Kumar” “Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja”and latest detailed judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 132/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) in “Ranjan Kumar Chadha” has held that there is no requirement of compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act only through writing and also permissible to convey the right orally.

(ii) In the cases where contraband was recovered from accused's suitcase, accused's premisses, accused's vehicle, accused's bag, and other conveyance, there is no necesscity to comply the requirement of section 50 of NDPS Act. “ 17.5.2. In this case, the recovery was made only from the bag carried by the appellant and hence there was no need to comply the requirement of section 50 of NDPS Act. Even otherwise, on facts, the searching officer and the other members of the team clearly deposed about the oral communication about the right of option of the accused to be searched under section 50 of the NDPS Act. There is no infirmity in their evidence about the oral communication. Even though the subsequent written communication following the oral information has some defect, this court is satisfied with the compliance of the section 50 of the NDPS Act through oral communication. The said part of the evidence is in accordance with the direction given by the Hon’ble Two constitution bench of Supreme Court in the case of “Baldev Singh”, “Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja” and the material portion of the judgment is as follows :- 133/267

Therefore, this Court inclines to hold that there was no necesscity to follow the mandate of Section 50 and finds no infirmity in the finding of the learned Trial Judge about the compliance of Section 50 on the basis of the cogent evidence of the search officer in each case corroborated by material documents.

17.7 Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants to acquit the appellant for non-compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act deserves to be rejected.

135/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm )

18. Discussion on the presence of the crime number either in the sample or arrest memo before registration of the case:

Therefore, the criminal rules of practice demands the mentioning of the crime number on the label of the material object. Hence, mentioning of the crime number can not be treated as a circumstance to treat the recovery with suspicions eye. He also relied the judgment of the same learned judge in the different cases with finding that mentioning of the crime number need not necessarily affect the testimony of the recovery witness. 136/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 18.3. This court considered the said submission of the both learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the relevant precedent on the said aspect.

18.4. As per the criminal rules of practice framed by the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, it is duty of the Investigating Agency to affix the crime number on the material object in order to keep safe custody of the property in the property room of the trial court and also for proper identification of the material object that it belonged to the corresponding crime number. The labelling of the crime number on the material object might have been written subsequently at the time of the remand of the accused. Further, in most of the cases, the search was made on the basis of prior information received as per section 42 of the NDPS Act. Since, the team had proceeded to the spot on the basis of recording of the information either in the General Diary or sending information through telephone to the higher officers or after reducing the said information in writing, they would know the last crime number of the particular station. Even in the case of the recovery under section 43 of the NDPS act or chance recovery, due to the advantage of the telecommunication facilities, the chance of getting the last crime number of the station is possible one. Therefore, 137/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) without proper cross examination in the above aspect and in the absence of the supporting material for the manipulation of the records, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the mentioning of crime number created suspicion relating to the recovery of the contraband in the occurrence place, is nothing but myth. Further, it is true that the learned judge of this court in the judgment in the case of Thangapandi and others Vs. The Inspector of Police (L&O) reported in AIR OnLine 2018 MAD 1132. has held that the mentioning of the crime number in the arrest memo, recovery mahazar, label of the material object created doubt considering the other material circumstances of the said case in the process of the recovery of the contraband. But, the learned judge in the subsequent decision based on the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Judge of this court has held that the same cannot be used to suspect the recovery of the contraband.

18.5. Therefore, this court is duty bound to consider both the appeal judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellants and the argument of the learned additional public prosecutor and the other precedents of the various high court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 138/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 18.5.1. In the case of Radhey Sham v. State of Haryana , reported in (2001) 10 SCC 206 a similar contention was raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the relevant paragraphs are as follows:-

She has also affixed her LTI in the property labels. The properties were sent to the Magistrate under Form 95 (Ex.P.7) on 22.10.2004, the same day of recovery. Therefore mere presence of crime number on the label affixed prior to registering F.I.R is ipso facto will not render the recovery doubtful.” 18.5.3. A similar contention was raised before this Court (Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN) in S.A.Bakrudeen Vs. The Inspector of Police, NIB CID Chennai in Crl.A.No.395 of 2012 wherein the Hon'ble Judge has held in the relevant paragraph as follows:- 141/267

The accused and the seized contraband has been produced before the Magistrate on the same day of seizure and arrest. For 142/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) producing the contraband before the Regular Court, 20 days delay is admitted. However, on the day of arrest itself, the contraband has been produced before the Judicial Magistrate. The sample received by the chemical examiner for analysis was found intact with seal. Therefore, there is no scope to suspect any manipulation. When the possession of contraband not been explained by the accused, the overall evidence let in by the prosecution, prove the charge of illegal possession of Ganja by the accused. Therefore, this Court finds no error in the finding of the trial Court.” 18.5.5.This Court in the case of Kannan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police reported in AIR OnLine 2019 MAD 402, has held as follows:-

19.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi ) reported in (2020) 10 SCC 120, reiterated the principles that the non-examination of the independent witnesses could not be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the police officers when the same was cogent and trustworthy. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

Thus, in the cases of reverse burden of proof, the presumption can operate only after the initial burden which exists on the prosecution is satisfied. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the reverse burden does not merely exist in special enactments like the NDPS Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act , but is also a part of the IPC — Section 304-B and all such offences under the Penal Code are to be investigated in accordance with the provisions of CrPC and consequently the informant can himself investigate the said offences under Section 157 CrPC.” 19.2. The Hon'ble three judges bench in the case of Union of India vs. Bal Mukund and others reported in (2009) 12 SCC 161 has held that:

20.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardip Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 8 SCC 557 has held as follows:-

made in between the three purposes mentioned therein, itself makes it explicitly clear that the purposes for which the application could be made under sub-section (2) are alternative and not cumulative in nature. Such provision specifying multiple alternative purposes could not be construed as a mandatory provision much less its non-compliance fatal to the case of prosecution.

46. At this stage, we must deal with the recent judgments in Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab [Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 14 SCC 222 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906] , in Yusuf v. State [Yusuf v. State, (2024) 14 SCC 217 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328], and in Mohd. Khalid v. State of Telangana [Mohd. Khalid v. State of Telangana, (2024) 5 SCC 393 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 650] in which the convictions have been set aside by this Court on finding non-compliance with Section 52-A and relying upon the observations made in Mohanlal [Union of India v. Mohanlal , (2016) 3 SCC 379 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 864]. Apart from the fact that the said cases have been decided on the facts of each case, none of the judgments has proposed to lay down any law either with regard to Section 52-A or on the issue of admissibility of any other evidence collected during the course of trial under the NDPS Act .

47. Therefore, we have considered the legislative history of Section 52-A and other statutory Standing Orders as also the 159/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) judicial pronouncements, which clearly lead to an inevitable conclusion that delayed compliance or noncompliance with Section 52-A neither vitiates the trial affecting conviction nor can be a sole ground to seek bail. In our opinion, the decisions of Constitution Benches in Pooran Mal [Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation ), (1974) 1 SCC 345 : (1974) 93 ITR

505| andBaldev Singh [State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh , (1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080] must take precedence over any observations made in the judgments made by the Benches of lesser strength, which are made without considering the scheme, purport and object of the Act and also without considering the binding precedents.

50.4. Sub-section (2) of Section 52-A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that ground alone.” 20.4.2.2.In the case of Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2025 SCC online SC 110 para 50 as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) compliance under Section 52A of the Act, has vitiated the trial then such plea cannot be accepted. By applying the above principles, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are entitled to acquittal on the account of non-compliance under Section 52(A) of the Act, deserves to be rejected.

21. Discussion in the maintainability of conviction under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) after acquittal under Section 25 & 29 (1) of the Act:-

20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act , is an independent provision. Provision under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, is a different one. To sustain the conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution shall prove any of the following facts:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 21.2. But, to sustain the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, it is not necessary to prove the above ingredients. To sustain a conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, only requirement is either to prove the possession of the contraband in the car or transportation of the said contraband in the car. In this case, evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly proved that the appellants were travelling in the car along with the contraband. When the evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 are cogent and trustworthy about the recovery of contraband in the car and when there is no explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., this Court concurs the finding of the learned trial Judge that the appellants are liable to be convicted under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the Act. Therefore, the acquittal under Sections 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act ipso fact, is not a bar to convict the appellants under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act.

23. Discussion on the maintainability of the conviction in all cases under Section Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act without proof of recovered contraband with flowering or fruiting tops:

Once the recovered ganja did not contain the flowering or fruiting tops as per Section 2(b) of the NDPS Act , they are not liable to be prosecuted under any of the provision NDPS Act . Hence, if the recovered contraband 166/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) has only seeds and other parts of ganja without flowering or fruiting tops, the appellant cannot be convicted under the NDPS Act for possession of the Ganja as per the definition of 2(b) of the NDPS Act and hence they seek for acquittal.

23.2.2 Further, some of the Learned counsels argued that the police team weighed the entire contraband along with gunny bag, leaves and seeds without weighing the weight of the bag, leaves and seeds separately. In any event due to the mentioning of the “cannabinod” without any reference to THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) in the chemical analysis report and without any clarity that the recovered contraband contained the flowering or fruiting tops and when it contained only leaves, seeds and stalks, the case of the appellant would come only under the category of below commercial quantity. In view of such ambiguity, conviction under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act is not legally maintainable.Therefore, they seek to alter the conviction under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and reduce the sentence proportionately.

167/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 23.3. Submission of the learned Additional public prosecutor:

epfu vil 22 fpuhk;.

23.4. Reply argument by learned counsel for appellants:

compound leaves 23.6. Pharmacology of Hemp:

containing parts.

23.6.3. A few active components of cannabis, namely delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabinol (CBN), and cannabidiol (CBD), have been found to produce its intoxicating effects, which include feelings of euphoria, altered perception, relaxation, and well being. Cannabinol (CBN), and cannabidiol (CBD) are not treated as offending substance. only delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is treated as most offending psychotropic substance and the same is present all over the parts of the hemp, namely, root, stem, stalks, leaves, pistillate flowers i.e both drug- containing parts and non-drug-containing parts. But significant quantity of Psychoactive constituent THC is present only in the fruiting and flowering tops and leaves next to the flowering tops. Also the leaves next to the male flowering tops of potent cannabis plants contain consumable amounts of THC. However, the content is much lower than that of female plants and they are therefore not material of first choice. The 174/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) central stem and main side stems contain little THC but they may still be used in the production of cannabis oil.

23.6.4. The “Laboratory and Scientific Section United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Vienna” revised and updated the methods of analysis for cannabis and cannabis products in the name of “Recommended methods for the identification and analysis of cannabis and cannabis products”. The same was used by our laboratory as a “Manual for use by National Drug analysis Laboratories”. The said manual delineates that the THC content varies depending on the plant part:

Therefore, Fluorescences of flower is a material part of ganja which comes under its definition. Marijuana is the base for both ganja and bang. In both, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is present.

175/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 23.6.6. Usage of bhang with the limit of 15% of THC is not an offence. But in the case of Ganja it is about 25% of THC, and it is an offence. Concentrated Psychoactive constituent is present only in the fruiting or flowering tops. The small leaves (petal) next to the flowering tops contain significant quantity of psychoactive constituent THC and they are known as drug containing parts. The bigger leaves, namely, the luxuriant leaves located at greater distance from the flowering tops also have THC, but they are not treated as the psychoactive constituent. Similarly, the male flowers contain moderately less THC than the female plants. Central stem, main stem contain little THC and they are used for the preparation of the bhang. Remaining part also contains THC, but they are used for the preparation of the various fiber or the oil, herbal materials.

23.6.7. The House of Lords also has dealt the taxonomy of the cannabis plant and pharmacology of the cannabis in the decision reported in the case of Directorate of Prosecution (Respondent) and Goodchild (Appellant) reported in 1978 (1) WLR 578 and held as follows:

The hallucinogenic Ingredients, cannabinol, T.H.C. can then be extracted from the resin.

5.2. The narcotic effect of the cannabis plant when subjected to no other treatment except drying thus varies with the portion of the plant that is used. The resin when separated from the plant contains a higher concentration of narcotic than the plant itself, while the highest narcotic content is to be found in cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives after they have been extracted from the resin.” 23.6.8. From the reading of the various provisions of the Act, and the precedents of various Courts and House of lords and the guidelines 177/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) issued by the Union Government as to how the chemical analysis has to be conducted on the basis of UNODC guidelines and various articles and the toxicology books and Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report 1894, this Court opines that cannabis plant contains various parts and the same is divisible into drug containing parts and non-drug containing parts. Even in the drug containing parts, the ratio of psychoactive constituent varies. More than 550 number of chemicals are present in the cannabis and cumulatively called as “cannabinoid”. As per the pharmacology, cannabinoid mainly contains THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol), CBD (Cannabinoidal), CBN (Cannabinal). As already observed, the fruiting and flowering tops and leaves next to the flowering tops (either called as small leaves or petal or vegetative tops) contain the significant amount of THC and they are called as the drug containing parts of the cannabis plant. Remaining parts even though having negligible amount of THC, they are not brought under the control of the Act. Bhang one of the offending materials with negligible amount of THC, which was in the earlier Abkari Act and Dangerous drugs Act, is omitted by government in the present NDPS Act . The would show that Bhang is out of the purview of the Act. With the first hand of Pharmacology of Hemp, this court delves into the History of the Penal provision of “Hemp Cultivation” 178/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 23.7. The History of the Penal provision of “Hemp Cultivation”:

Only in the recent part of its Indian history cannabis was banned, and its use and prevalence grew exponentially, and now it is on the verge of being legalized again.

23.7.2. Cannabis Sativa or Indica is known as Indian Hemp. In India, the indigenous distinction between marijuana, bhang, and hashish have existed for centuries, and the three derivatives have considerable differences in concentrations of THC, CBD, and other components. So far as hemp is concerned, it is always treated as a multi purpose plant and also used as the medical drug from time immemorial. During the British period in the year 1894 a Indian Hemp Drugs Commission was appointed and in its more than 1372 pages report with heavy documentation of evidence and testimonies recommended against the prohibition of the cannabis due to its extensive use in several parts of India even for religious purposes it was concluded with the following note:

During the British period the regulation was available only for the purpose of the collection of revenue by imposing tax on the cultivation of the hemp. Subsequently, similar penal provisions as intoxicating drugs were incorporated in various Excise Act in many other states and in the Central Excise Act .

23.7.5 Thereafter, most of the states dealt with the Intoxicating Drugs under the various Excise Act namely Bengal Excise Act, 1909 , The United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 , The Punjab Excise act, 1914, The Burma Excise act, 1917, The East Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910 , The Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 . Apart from that Central Provinces Excise Act, 1915 also was in force.

23.7.6 Maximum 6 months punishment was provided with. Subsequently, on the basis of the Geneva convention relating to dangerous drugs held on 27.09.1923, 17.09.1924 and 19.02.1925 and the state being signatory to the said convention British Government brought Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 with the following preamble:

After the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 number of states brought Prohibition Act . The Prohibition Act dealt with both Intoxicating Liquor and Intoxicating Drugs.

23.8. Thereafter, taking note of many deficiencies in the existing laws and considering the drug abuse at the national and international level and also to imple ment the covenants of International convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, on 16.09.1985 the existing “ Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ” was introduced with the following statement of objects and reasons:

Further, no minimum punishment is prescribed in the Courts with nominal punishment. The country has for the last few years been increasingly facing the problem of transit traffic of drugs coming mainly from some of our neighboring countries and destined mainly to Western countries.

(ii). The existing Central laws do not provide for investing the officers of a number of important Central enforcement agencies like narcotics, customs, central excise, etc., with the power of investigation of offences under the said laws.

(iii) Since the enactment of the aforesaid three central Act a vast body of international law in the field of narcotics control has evolved through various international treaties and protocols. The Government of India has been a party to these treatise and conventions which entail several obligations which are not covered or are only partly covered by the present Acts.

(iv) During recent years new drugs of addiction which have come to be known as psychotropic substances have appeared on the scene and poses serious problems to national Governments. There is no comprehensive law to enable exercise of control over psychotropic substances in India in the manner as envisaged in the convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 to which India also has acceded.

185/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm )

2. In view of what has been stated above, there is an urgent need for the enactment of a comprehensive legislation on narcotic drugs and pyschotropic substances which, inter alia, should consolidate and amend the exiting laws relating to narcotic drugs, strengthen the existing controls over drug abuse, considerably enhance the penalties particularly for trafficking offences, make provisions for exercising effective control over psychotropic substances and make provisions for the implementation of international conventions relating to narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substances to which India has become a party.” 23.8.1 Further various amendments were brought in the year 1989, 2001, 2014 to further strengthen the Act with stringent provisions. As per the NDPS Act, 1985 grave punishment was provided with reverse burden of proof by dividing the quantity of the contraband namely Narcotic Drugs and Narcotic Substances into three categories namely Commercial, Below Commercial and small quantity with following punishment:

obtained from the Indian hemp plant, (b) ganja, that is, the flowering or which has not been submitted to any fruiting tops of the cannabis plant manipulations other than those (excluding the seeds and leaves when necessary for packing and transport ; not accompanied by the tops), by

(iii) any mixture, with or whatever name they may be known or without neutral materials, of any of the designated; and above forms of hemp or any drink (c) any mixture, with or without any prepared therefrom. neutral material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom;

(iv) “cannabis plant” means any plant of the genus cannabis;

188/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 23.8.4 After the introduction of NDPS Act , the legislature considering the grave punishment, confined the definition of the cannabis(hemp) only to the parts of the genus of cannabis plant. According to the definition of the cannabis hemp under the NDPS Act , cannabis plant, Ganja, Charas are specifically defined. Charas is a resin whether in the form of crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and includes the concentrated preparation and the resin is known as hashish oil or liquid hashish. The Ganja has been defined as flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. Cannabis plant is defined as any plant of the genus of the cannabis. The mixture means with or without neutral material of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom. The cumulative reading of the definitions shows that only flowering or fruiting top of the cannabis plant without the seeds and leaves is treated as Ganja. In the case of possession and trafficking of ganja, there is a total exclusion of any other parts of the cannabis plant other than the flowering or fruiting top and, seeds and leaves would be included only when accompanied with the flowering or fruiting tops.

23.8.5. The legislature also introduced the notification with contents of the chemical name and small,below commercial and commercial quantity.

189/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 23.8.6 In the table specified in the notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 2 clauses (viia) and (xxiiia) of the Act, serial number 23 defines cannabis and cannabis resin and the non-proprietary name was described as Charas and Hashish and name of chemical extract is extracts and tinctures of cannabis, whereas in the serial number 55, Ganja is mentioned without any non-proprietary name and chemical name.

The Chemical name mentioned as per the NDPS Act , are as follows:

penty 611-dibenzo [b-d] pyran-OI 190/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 23.9. Principles to interpret the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 :

23.9.2.A similar question arose before the House of Lords as to maintainability of conviction under “class A” without exclusion of seeds and leaves and the House of Lords in the case of Directorate of Prosecution (Respondent) and Goodchild (Appellant) reported in 1978 (1) WLR 578, has discussed taxonomy and pharmacology of cannabis and held as follows:-

They are included as Items in the list of Class B drugs, but "Cannabinol, except where contained in cannabis or cannabis resin Classan items in Class A; so is "Cannabinol derivatives, an expression which is defined in Part IV of Schedule 2 as meaning "the following substances, except where contained in cannabis or cannabis resin, namely tetrahydro derivatives of cannabinol and 3- alkyl hornologues of cannabinol or of its tetrahydro derivatives."

Following upon the lists of controlled drugs specified by name in each of the three classes are additional paragraphs designed to incorporate in the class closely related chemical analogues of the listed drugs, such as stereoisomers, esters, ethers 193/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) and salts. In addition there is a paragraph which incorporates within the relevant class "any preparation or other product containing a substance or product for the time being specified in [the list of drugs] above."

At the first trial of the appellant in the Crown Court in June 1976, the expert scientific evidence was given in the form of written statements. It was common ground that it was not proved that any part of the leaf and stalk of the cannabis plant that had been found in his possession consisted of flowering or fruiting tops, but that it was proved, though by qualitative analysis only, that some T.H.C. was present in the specimen that had been subjected to analysis. Upon this evidence the judge ruled that the material found in the appellant's possession was cannabis. The judge also ruled that the appellant had in his possession a cannabinol derivative, T.H.C., since this had been identified as a constituent of that material; but that the appellant was not in possession of any cannabis resin.

In consequence of those rulings, the appellant pleaded guilty to the count of unlawful possession of the controlled Class B drug, "cannabis. He pleaded not guilty to the count of being in unlawful possession of the Class A drug "a cannabinol derivative." This count was left upon the file; and the appellant was sentenced to a fine of £100 or six months' Imprisonment in default of payment on the count of unlawful possession of "cannabis."

His appeal to the Court of Appeal against his conviction on this count was allowed on December 10, 1976, on the ground that the statutory definition of cannabis is restricted to the flowering or fruiting tops of the plant, and that leaf and stalk alone, in the absence of any such flowering or fruiting tops, does not fall within 194/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) the definition. This was, in my view, obviously right. No argument to the contrary has been advanced before your Lordships' House.

The appellant underwent a second trial upon the count remaining on the file which charged him with unlawful possession of "a cannabinol derivative." This was held in the Crown Court on March 3, 1977, and was presided over by a different judge. He too ruled that possession of leaf and stalk of the cannabis plant which proved on analysis to contain traces of T.H.C. amounted to possession of "a cannabinol derivative" within the meaning of section 5 of and Schedule 2 to the Act. Faced by this ruling the appellant once more changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced to a fine of £25. Once more too he appealed to the Court of Appeal who upheld the Judge's ruling and certified that a point of law of general public Importance was involved in the decision, namely:

My Lords, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a criminal statute. It makes it an offence to be in possession of any of a long list of drugs and makes the gravity of the offence depend upon the class of listed drug into which the particular substance in his possession falls, Most, though not all, of the listed drugs in the three Classes A, B and C are described by their precise chemical name and are synthetic substances which do not occur in the natural state. In the case of these drugs there is no room for doubt or ambiguity. A substance either is the described synthetic drug (or a preparation or 195/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) other product containing the described synthetic drug) or it is not.

But there are some listed drugs which, although they can be synthesised, also occur in the natural state in plants, fungi or animals, and these include some of the most used narcotic drugs.

It would not in my view be a natural use of language to say, for instance, that a person was in possession of morphine when what he really had was oplum poppy straw from which whatever morphine content there might be in it had not yet been separated; nor do I think it would be apt use of language to describe the poppy straw as a "preparation or other product containing morphine, since this expression is inappropriate to something that is found in nature as distinct from something that is manmade. Regarded simply from the point of view of language the matter is in my view put beyond doubt as respects the specific narcotic Ingredients found in oplum poppies by the inclusion in the list as separate Items "opium" and "poppy straw" as well as morphine, thebaine, codeine and several other specified alkaloids which are or may be constituents of opium and of poppy straw. A similar Indication of the meaning of references in the Schedule to specific drugs by their scientific names is to be found in the inclusion as separate items of "cocaine" itself and "coca leaf" which contains cocaine and from which cocaine can be extracted. I should conclude, therefore, that prima facle a reference in Schedule 2 to a specific drug by its scientific name does not include a reference to any naturally occurring substance of which the specific drug is a constituent but from which it has not yet been separated.

So prima facie one would not suppose that possession of naturally occurring leaf and stalk of the plant cannabis sativa of 196/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) which a cannabinol derivative, T.H.C., was an unseparated constituent could be charged under the Act as possession of a "cannabinol derivative."

The argument to the contrary depends upon the presence of the words of exception which I have Italicised in the description of cannabinol in the list of Class A drugs and In the definition of cannabinol derivatives In Part IV of Schedule 2. These, It is suggested, give rise to an inference that but for the exception, cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives notwithstanding that they were contained in the natural substances cannabis or cannabis resin would have fallen within the definition; and that, accordingly possession of cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives in however small a quantity if contained in any naturally occurring material other than one falling within the statutory definition of cannabis or cannabis resin would constitute the offence of possession of a Class A drug under the Act.

My Lords, such inference as to the ambit of enacting words that can be derived from the presence of a proviso or the exception is notoriously a weak one, since the proviso or exception may have been Inserted per majorem cautelam. In any event it must give way whenever the consequences of applying it would be irrational or unjust. In the instant case the consequence, at the time that the appellant was prosecuted, would have been that he would be liable to be convicted of the more serious offence of unlawful possession of a Class A drug, whereas if what he had had in his possession had Included part of the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant and so contained a greater concentration of cannabinol derivatives, he could only have been convicted of the lesser offence of 197/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) possession of a Class B drug, to wit cannabis Itself.

I would construe the Act in such a way as to avoid this irrational and unjust result. A man should not be gaoled upon an ambiguity. I would allow the appeal and quash the conviction of the appellant for the offence of unlawful possession of a cannbinol derivative. The House of Lords also discussed the same in the case of” 23.10 With the above laid guidance and principles, now this court ventures into the discussion on the Definition of Ganja:

Therefore, vociferous submission of the Learned Counsel for the accused about the ongoing conviction for possession of the “Ganja“ without satisfying whether the seized contraband would come under the definition of “Ganja” has to be looked into.

23.10.2 Andrew Ashworth, in his writing “Positive Obligations in the Criminal Law” has felt the same in the following words;

“My reasoning has been essentially normative, rather than descriptive or historical. At its core is the notion of fairness, and its 198/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) connection with censure-based and rule of law values. I have argued that it is unfair, in a political system to convict people of serious crimes without proof of fault as to all the material elements of the offence. This goes against basic notions of personal autonomy; and it is even more destructive of autonomy to deprive a person of liberty, by means of a sentence of imprisonment, with such proof of fault. “ 23.10.3 Controlling the drug menace by convicting the accused with harsh punishment under the NDPS Act in the interest of the society and acquitting when there is no strict proof of ingredients of the provision of the Act, are the two sides of the legal requirement of fair justice under the NDPS jurisdiction. The Court always has to consider the triangular interest of society, accused and prosecution.

23.10.3.(1). Ganja:

including the leaves, stems and blooms” But the legislature has omitted the leaves, stems. The legislature has made it clear to bring only the portion of 202/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant as offending psychoactive material under NDPS Act and the same is further strengthened from following portion of “National Policy on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances under the head of Cultivation of Cannabis” “21. Bhang is a preparation made from cannabis leaves consumed in parts of India on some festivals. As it is not made from cannabis resin or from flowering tops, it is not covered under the NDPS Act, 1985 . Production and sale of Bhang is permitted by many State Governments. Whoever is so licenced to produce Bhang shall be allowed to produce it from the leaves of the wildly grown cannabis plants only. They shall not use the flowering tops or the resin produced from the plants. If anyone is found mixing with Bhang any part of flowering tops or the resin produced from the cannabis plants, he shall be punishable under relevant provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 and if he happens to be a licensee, his license shall also be cancelled.

22. Cannabis plant can be a source of biomass and fibre for industrial purposes. Cannabis seeds can be used to produce cannabis seed oil - a high value oil. Some countries license cultivation of cannabis varieties which have very low content of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient which has the intoxicating effect. These varieties of cannabis are used to produce fibres which are, in turn, used in production of fabrics and for production of biomass.

23. Section 14 of the NDPS Act empowers the Government to, 203/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) by general or special order, permit cultivation of cannabis exclusively for horticultural and industrial purposes. The Central Government shall encourage research and trials of cultivars of cannabis with low THC content. The Central Government shall, however, follow a cautious, evidence-based approach towards cultivation of cannabis for horticultural and/or industrial purposes and shall take decisions based on results of research.” 23.10.10. Therefore, this courts is not declined to accept the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that fjph;fs; impliedly denoted flowering and fruiting tops and this court holds that to bring the recovered contraband under the definition of 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act , i.e., the weight of the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant should be above threshold limit mentioned in the schedule excluding Compound leaves otherwise called luxuriant leaves, stalk, stem, bag and in some circumstances excluding of the weight of seeds and leaves when not accompanied with the tops. If the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant are not separately recovered and recovered with stalks and stem, the legal requirement is to exclude the weight of the stalks and stem. If seeds and leaves are recovered, the prosecution should prove that the recovered seeds and leaves were accompanied with flowering tops or fruiting tops. 204/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 23.10.11. Therefore, if flowering or fruiting tops is recovered and if recovered Ganja is accompanied with leaves and seeds, with either stems or stalks, then it is the duty of the investigating agency to measure the offending materials separately (i.e., leaves,seeds and flowering or fruiting tops) to be measured together but not the stem and stalk, and stem or stalk to be measured separately.

23.10.12. Therefore, in the case of ganja, appearance of the recovered contraband is material. It must contain flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. Now the judgments are delivered on the basis of the chemical analysis report made on the basis of heterogeneous mixture sample with the name of the chemical, namely “cannabiniod”.

23.11. Burden of Proof:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) “Since the provisions of the NDPS Act and the punishments prescribed therein are stringent, the extent of burden of prove the foundational facts cast on the prosecution, would have to be more onerous. The view taken was that Courts would have to undertake a heightened scrutiny test and satisfy itself of “proof beyond all reasonable doubt”. Emphasis was laid on the well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that more serious the offence, the stricter would be the degree of proof and a higher degree of assurance would be necessary to convict an accused [Also refer: State of Punjab vs Baldev Singh , Ritesh Chakarvarti v. State of M.P., and Bhola Singh (supra)]” 23.11.2 The Hon'ble three Judges bench in the case of Union of India v. Bal Mukund , reported in (2009) 12 SCC 161 has held as follows:

10. The stringent provisions of the NDPS Act , such as Section 37 , the minimum sentence of 10 years, absence of any provision for remission do not dispense with the requirements of prosecution to establish a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt after investigation, only whereafter which the burden of proof shall shift to the accused. The gravity of the sentence and the stringency of the provisions will therefore call for a heightened scrutiny of the evidence for establishment of foundational facts by the prosecution.

23.11.4. The said compliance is legally required to be followed in the border line cases of the recovered contraband having weight between 21 and 25 kgs. In more than 25 kgs cases, there would be no significant change in the weight of the contraband.

23.11.5. The said guesstimation is on the basis of the chemical analysis report furnished before the Court with the presence of the “connabiniod”. In the case of commercial quantity, the NDPS Act provides harsh punishment of minimum punishment of 10 years Rigorous 207/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) Imprisonment and minimum fine of 1 Lakh. Accused’s right to get bail is an exception and if bail is not granted, he would languish in jail till his acquittal. In most of the convicted cases, the accused is unable to pay the fine amount. Therefore, many courts have not numbered the petition to suspend sentence without payment of fine amount.

23.11.6. When the Act itself excludes seeds and leaves of the cannabis plant in certain circumstances, and does not include stem and stalk, the burden on the prosecution to prove that their case comes under the definition is heavy, considering the harshness of the punishment and the rigidity of the procedure in conducting trial.

23.12 Calculation of Weight:

1i)Kamta Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar [1976 ( 3) SCC 772] (ii)Trishala Jain vs. State of Uttaranchal [2011 (6) SCC 47]

( iii) Newkhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Harnand Singh (deceased) through Lrs and others [2024 SCC Online 1691] 2(iv) Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab 2012 ( 1) SCC 10 (v) B.P.Achala Anand vs. S.Appi Reddy 2005 (3) SCC 313 209/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 23.12.5. Both the investigating agency and prosecution agency should act in a fair manner and weigh, describe the proper particulars of the flowering or fruiting tops, specify if it was accompanied with leaves and seeds or not, specify the weight of stem and stalk, of seized ganja separately. The above exercise may be a difficult task but in view of the stringent provision and stringent punishment, they ought to do this. It is settled law that in the case of the grave punishment the prosecution is expected to prove the case strictly complying with the requirement of law. The ongoing practice of convicting the accused for the possession of the commercial quantity without identification and segregation of the flowering parts of the hemp is not correct. Chemical analysis report is filed indicating that there is cannabinod on chemical analysis.

23.13. Parity:

Otherwise, there would be miscarriage of justice and failure of fair justice.

23.14. Discussion on the merits of the Case:

This can be represented accurately by the below Venn diagram: 214/267

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm )

23. Axiomatically, the weight of seeds/stalks and stems (Category B) should be excluded while calculating the actual quantity (Only Category A) recovered.

24. Evidently, the present case is of a recovery falling within Category C. The Chargesheet records that when the Petitioner/Ravina was apprehended, blue coloured plastic polythene bag was recovered from her which contained grass-like flowery- leafy material along with its stems, which appeared to be “Ganja” and was seized vide the seizure memo. On weighing the recovered Ganja, on the electronic weighing machine, the total weight of the quantity recovered, was about 24.145 Kg.

25. The FSL Report confirmed that on physical, Chemical. Microscopic and TLC examination, exhibits ‘SA-1’ and ‘SB-1’ were found to be “Ganja”.

26. Pertinently, the recovered quantity of about 24.145 Kg was just 4.145 kgs more than the commercial quantity. Since, the entire substance including stems/stalks and dried leaves were weighed together without quantifying the weight of the flowering or fruiting tops, the quantity of ‘Ganja’ seized from the Applicant may be less than commercial quantity so as to attract Section 20 of the NDPS Act....” 23.14.6 Similar view is also taken by the various courts while considering the following quantities:

2. Shri Sandip Ashok Raut Vs. State of Maharastra 187 kg 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4543

3. Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan 28.600 gms (cannabis) 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 485

4. Bettanayaka Vs. State of Karnataka 20 kg 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3916

5. Ratanlal Kharadi Vs. State of M.P 21 Kg. 400 grms 2019 SCC OnLine MP 6083

6. Ratnesh Vs. State 20 kg 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9883

7. Suresh Kumar Vs. State 25 kg and 100 gm of 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1209 ganja

8. Lavlesh Kumar Vs. State 22 kgs of Ganja 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12574 23.14.7 In similar circumstances, this court also excluded the weight of the bag, stalk and stem and converted the case from commercial quantity into below commercial quantity in the case of K.V.Ramasamy reported in 2010 (1) TNLR 51 (MADRAS).” 23.14.8.In all these cases there is some ambiguity whether the seized ganja was weighed excluding the weight of the bag, stalk, stem, luxuriant leaves or only flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. Even in the report there is no whisper about the presence of the Tetrahydrocannabinol as chief intoxicating ingredient. Therefore, considering the overall circumstances and also taking into account that the appellants are confined 217/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) in prison without bail from the date of arrest, during the trial and pendency of these appeals, this court holds that conviction cannot be recorded on ambiguity about the exact weight of the drug containing parts of the hemp as defined under the definition of ganja in these border cases namely cases covered between 21 kg to 25 kg.

23.15. Discussion on the Principle of “HIRA SINGH” Case:

As per definition of Narcotic drugs Section 2(xiv) of the NDPS Act, 1985 reads as follows:

Therefore, this Court under guesstimation holds the weight ganja might be blow the commercial quantity if the weight of the two travel bags, one gunny bag, stalk, luxuriant leaves, seeds, stem are excluded. Therefore, this Court is inclined to convert the conviction of appellants into Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act .

23.15.9.This Court is also duty bound to clarify that the above interpretation applicable to “ganja” is not applicable to the case of the “charas” in view of the inclusive and expanding following definition of charas in section 2 (iii) (a) of the NDPS Act, 1985 “charas, that is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish” 221/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 23.16. Therefore, this Court arrives at the conclusion that the appellant's case does not come under the category of commercial quantity and he is not liable to be convicted “under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 ” and he is liable to be convicted “under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 ”.

23.17. Therefore, this Court inclines to accept the argument of all the learned counsels for the appellants to convict all the appellants under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act , considering the special circumstances of the case that the contraband was recovered with leaves, seeds, stem and stalk and without any materials to prove the presence of flowering or fruiting tops alone and without measurement of the separate weight of the bag,seeds,stem, stalks etc Pertinently, the recovered quantity more than the above small and below commercial quantity. Since, the entire substance including stems/stalks and dried leaves with bags were weighed together without quantifying the weight of the flowering or fruiting tops, the quantity of ‘Ganja’ seized from the appellants may be less than commercial, pertinently, the recovered quantity was just 1 to 5 Kgs 222/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) more than 20 kgs.

23.18. Therefore, in view of the positive report of the chemical analysis about the presence of the cannabinod, this Court is of the opinion that seized ganja is a heterogeneous mixture of offending drug containing parts of the hemp and the other non-offending drug containing parts of the hemp and this Court at this stage of the appeal feels to convert the conviction under “ Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C)of the NDPS Act, 1985 ” into one under “ Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 ”.

24. Conclusion on conviction:

24.2 Accordingly, all the appeals are partly allowed and conviction passed against the appellants in all cases in respective C.C.nos. for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act , is hereby set aside and all the appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act .

25. Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

25.2 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 172 of 2023:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone by the accused and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

25.3 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 293 of 2021:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence which has been already undergone by the accused and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

25.4. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 331 of 2023:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

25.5. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 396, 400, 399, 397 of 2023:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

25.5.3 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 399 of 2023:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

25.5.4 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 400 of 2023:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

25.8 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 551 of 2023:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- eeach with default sentence of 6 months each simple imprisonment.

25.10 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 724 of 2023:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each with default sentence of 6 months each simple imprisonment.

25.11 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 773, 953 of 2023 and Crl.A.(MD).No.265 of 2024:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to sentence already undergone by the accused and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

25.11.2 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 953 of 2023:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone by the accused and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

25.11.3 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 265 of 2024:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha 240/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone by the accused and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment each.

25.12. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 322 of 2023:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone by the accused and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment each.

241/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 25.13. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 269 and 558 of 2023:

1,00,000/- in default sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act . Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)

(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act . They are confined in prison from 24.02.2023 onwards. In jail, she has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 48 years.

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone by the accused and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment each.

242/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 25.13.2.Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 558 of 2023:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone by the accused and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment each.

243/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm )

26.Details of modified conviction and sentence of imprisonment:

to undergo, 1 year 50,000/- (Rupees Rigorous Imprisonment Fifty Thousand each for the offence under only) in default, to Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) undergo, 6 months (C) of the NDPS Act . simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act .

2 Crl.A. Section 8(c) Section The appellant/Sole The appellant/sole (MD). r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) 8(c) r/w Accused to undergo 10 accused No. of the NDPS 20(b)(ii) years Rigorous punishment is 172 of Act. (B) of the Imprisonment and to pay a modified into 2023 NDPS Act . fine of Rs.1,00,000/- sentence already (Rupees One Lakh only) in undergone and to default, to undergo, 6 pay a fine of Rs.

8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the only) in default, to NDPS Act . undergo, 6 months simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act .

269 of of the NDPS (C) of the pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- Rigorous 2023 Act. NDPS Act . (Rupees One Lakh only) Imprisonment each each in default, to and to pay a fine of undergo, 1 year Simple Rs.50,000/-

558 of of the NDPS (C) of the pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- Rigorous 2023 Act. NDPS Act . (Rupees One Lakh only) Imprisonment each each in default, to and to pay a fine of undergo, 1 year Simple Rs.50,000/-

27.1.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 is partly allowed on the following terms:-

-Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.2. Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2021 is partly allowed on the following terms:-

ii) The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act .

iii) The appellant is sentenced to undergo 5 year/s of Rigorous Imprisonment and the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

iv) The period already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The Prison Authority is hereby directed to release the accused, unless his presence is necessary in any other case.

(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.

- Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.3.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 is partly allowed on the following terms:-

ii) The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act .

iii) The appellant is sentence of imprisonment as already undergone and the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

iv) The period already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.

- Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.4.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2023 is partly allowed on the following terms:-

-Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.5.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.396, 397, 399 and 400 of 2023 are partly allowed on the following terms:-

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.6.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.507 of 2023 and 94 of 2024 are partly allowed on the following terms:- 255/267

ii) The appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act .

iii) The appellants are sentenced to undergo 5 year/s of rigorous imprisonment and the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 month/s simple imprisonment.

iv) The period already undergone by the appellants is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.

- Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.7.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2022 is partly allowed on the following terms:-

ii) The appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act .

iii) The appellants are sentenced to undergo 5 year/s of rigorous imprisonment and the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 month/s simple imprisonment.

iv) The period already undergone by the appellants is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.The Prison Authority is hereby directed to release the accused, unless his presence is necessary in any other case.

(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.

- Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 257/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 27.8.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 is partly allowed on the following terms:-

ii) The appellant is convicted under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act .

iii) The appellant is sentenced to undergo 5 year/s of rigorous imprisonment and the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 month/s simple imprisonment.

iv) The period already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.

- Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 258/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 27.9.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.588 of 2023 is partly allowed on the following terms:-

ii) The appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act .

iii) The appellants are sentenced to undergo 5 year/s of rigorous imprisonment and the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 month/s simple imprisonment.

iv) The period already undergone by the appellants is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.

- Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 259/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 27.10.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.724 of 2023 is partly allowed on the following terms:-

-Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 260/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) 27.11.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773 & 953 of 2023 and 2 65 of 2024 are partly allowed on the following terms:-

iii) The appellants/A2, A3, A1 & A4 are sentenced to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.

iv) The period already undergone by the appellants/A2, A3, A1 & A4 is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The Prison Authority is hereby directed to release the accused, unless their presence is necessary in any other case.

(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed 261/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) in this appeal.

- Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

27.12.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).No. 322 of 2023 partly allowed on the following terms:-

-Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.13.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.269 and 558 of 2023 partly allowed on the following terms:-

15.10.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No sbn Note: Issue order copy 23.10.2025 To:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm ) K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

sbn Crl.A.(MD).Nos. 212 of 2020, 172 of 2021, 293 of 2021, 331 of 2023, 396, 397, 399 & 400 of 2023, 507 of 2023 and 94 of 2024, 534 of 2022, 551 of 2023, 588 of 2023, 724 of 2023, 773, 953 of 2023 & 265 of 2024, 322 of 2023, 269 and 558 of 2023 15.10.2025 267/267 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 02:29:00 pm )