SUNIL KUMAR SINGH vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:19082


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 726 of 2009

[ Against the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2009 and order of
sentence dated 23.07.2009 passed by learned Special Judge-cum-
Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-VI),
Jamshedpur in Special Case No. 12 of 2000
]

Sunil Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Kedar Singh, resident of
Kanhakhurd, P.S. – Chatra, District – Chatra, Jharkhand.
… … Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

…..
For the Appellant : Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
…..
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 17.06.2026 Pronounced on 30.06.2026

Heard learned counsel for the parties.
1.
Present criminal appeal is directed against the
2.
judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2009 and order of
sentence dated 23.07.2009 passed by learned Special
Judge-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast
Track Court-VI), Jamshedpur in Special Case No. 12
of 2000 (arising out of Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case
No. 126 of 2000, G.R. No. 1669 of 2000), whereby the
appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 22(B) and 20 (B),
11(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act and has been sentenced to undergo
R.I. of 07 years along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- with
default stipulation.
1

2026:JHHC:19082


FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is based
upon the written report of S.I., Arvind Kumar, Officer-
in-Charge, Baghbera Police Station dated 17.10.2000
stating inter alia that the informant along with other
police patrolling party was returning to police station
at about 5:00 A.M. and reached near Chaibasa Bus
Stand, then he noticed one person holding one heavy
briefcase was coming from the Bus Stand. On
suspicion, the person was signal to stop, but he
started fleeing away and chased and apprehended. It
is alleged that in presence of witnesses and Gazetted
Officer namely, Prabir Kumar Bandopadhyay, upon
search of the VIP briefcase, 12 Polythene Packs of
Ganja weighing about 11 Kg was recovered from the
possession of the petitioner. Accordingly, the case was
instituted under Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S.
Act.
4. The appellant was charged for the aforesaid offences.
He denied from the charges and claimed to be tried.
After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence has been passed against the
appellant, which has been assailed in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised sole
question of law that after examination of the seized

2

2026:JHHC:19082


material from Forensic Science Laboratory, the report
dated 29.11.2002 (Exhibit-6) was submitted wherein
it was specifically opined that “the broken leaves of
vegetable flowery substances was found to be “Bhang”
not Ganja. However, ‘Ganja and Bhang’ both are
cannabis.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985, “Bhang” is excluded from the ambit of the
Act as punishable offence, therefore, conviction and
sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal and not
warranted under law, which is fit to be set aside. The
appellant deserves acquittal from the charges levelled
against him by allowing this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance
upon the recent reported judgment of Hon’ble
Karnataka High Court in the case of Roshan Kumar
Mishra Vs. The State of Karnataka by Beguru
Police Station [2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1484] , also
relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Punja and Haryana
High Court in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. State of
Haryana [2004 SCC OnLine P&H 828] , also relied
upon judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the
case of Madhukar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
[2002 SCC OnLine 1271] and also relied upon

3

2026:JHHC:19082


judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case
of Manjee Vs. State of Rajasthan [1996 SCC OnLine
Raj 409].
8. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has
submitted that in FSL report itself, it is mentioned
that ‘Ganja’ and ‘Bhang’ both are cannabis and the
substance seized in this case comes under purview of
NDPS Act, therefore, there is no illegality in the
impugned judgment, calling for interference.
9. I have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment and order in the light of
contentions raised on behalf of both side.
10. The sole point of law for consideration in this appeal
is that “as to ‘Ganja’ come within the purview of
N.D.P.S. Act as penal offence”.
11. It appears that in all the aforesaid four judgments
relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, it has
been held by different High Courts that bhang does
not fall within the definition of cannabis (Hemp) as
defined under Section 2(iii) of the Act. Thus, its
possession does not constitute an offence punishable
under the Act.
12. The definition of Section 2(iii) of N.D.P.S. Act reads as
under:-

4

2026:JHHC:19082


"(iii) "cannabis (hemp)" means -
(a) 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;
(b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of
the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and
leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by
whatever name they may be known or
designated; and
(c) any mixture, with or without any neutral
material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or
any drink prepared therefrom;"
13. On bare reading of the provision under Section
2(iii)(a) and (b) that charas and ganja or (c) i.e., any
mixture, with or without any neutral material, of any
of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared
therefrom, there is no scientific evidence before this
Court to show that the Bhang is prepared out of
either charas or ganja or ganja leaves. Since ganja
leaves and seeds are excluded from the definition of
ganja and nowhere in the NDPS Act the Bhang is
referred as a prohibited drink or prohibited drug.
Even the State Government has not made any rules
under the NDPS and mentioned about the Bhang as
prohibitory drug or issued any notifications in respect
of Bhang.

5

2026:JHHC:19082


In view of above discussion and reasons and specific
14.
consideration, it is crystal clear that ‘Ganja’ and
‘Charas’ are included within the definition of cannabis
(Hemp), whereas under N.D.P.S. Act, ‘Bhang’ is
excluded, therefore, Bhang does not fall within the
definition of cannabis (Hemp) as defined under
Section 2(iii) of N.D.P.S. Act, rather cultivation of
cannabis plant is punishable under Section 20(a) read
with Sub-Clause (b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. In the
instant case, there is no allegation of cultivation of
cannabis plant, rather possession of some substance
like Ganja, which was ultimately found to be Bhang,
which is specifically excluded from the purview of
N.D.P.S. Act. Therefore, the conviction and sentence
of the appellant for the offence under Sections 22(B)
and 20(B), 11 (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act is absolutely
illegal and not justified under law.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the
15.
appellant is hereby set aside and this appeal is
allowed .
16. The appellant is on bail. As such, he is discharged
from the liability of bail bonds and sureties shall also
discharged.
17. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.

6

2026:JHHC:19082


Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
18.
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.




( Pradeep Kumar Srivastava , J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
th
Dated, the 30 June, 2026 .
Sunil /
N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 30/06/2026
7