BHANG NOT UNDER NDPS ACT PURVIEW

Ten years after a man was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment by a lower
court for possessing 15 kg of bhang (hemp), the Punjab and Haryana High
Court has set aside the conviction ruling that possessing bhang is not an
offence under the NDPS Act.

Setting aside the conviction of the appellant, the High Court held that
bhang does not fall under substances defined under Section 2(III) of the
NDPS Act and therefore its possession did not constitute an offence
punishable under the Act. It also held the order of the lower court
"illegal and without jurisdiction".

The judgment is likely to have a bearing on a number of cases in which a
mere recovery of bhang led to the registration of a case under the NDPS Act.

The orders were given on the appeal of one Arjun Singh, who was serving his
term in the Rohtak District Jail. Arjun Singh had filed an appeal against
the conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide which he was
convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of
Rs 1 lakh for possessing 15 kg of bhang. The police recovered the bhang
from him at the Rohtak railway station in 1991.

Arjun Singh's counsel challenged the conviction on the ground that he could
not have been convicted under Section 20-B of the NDPS Act for possessing
bhang as it did not come in the purview of the definition under Section
2(III) of the Act that includes charas, ganja and any mixture with or
without any neutral material of these forms.

Bhang being leaves of cannabis were not included in the definition as
defined under this Section of the Act, the counsel maintained while
referring to a number of judgments related to the issue.

The counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, reiterated that the
trial court had rightly convicted the appellant under the NDPS Act.

After hearing the arguments, Justice Satish Kumar Mittal held that the
order of the lower court under Section 20-B of the Act was "wholly illegal
and without jurisdiction".

In his order, the Judge observed that Section 8 of the NDPS Act lay down
prohibition of certain operations and transaction of ganja and not bhang.
The Allahabad High Court had in a similar case concluded that bhang was not
covered under this Act, the Judge observed, referring to similar judgments
and the drug controller's report in this regard. One cannot be punished for
possession of bhang under the NDPS Act, though it was a punishable offence
under the Excise Act, the Judge observed.

Acquitting the appellant of the charges, Justice Mittal set aside the
Additional Sessions Judge's judgment of July 27,1992.