Flowering buds with leaves is ganja, says Bombay HC; denies bail – Times of India

MUMBAI: Bombay high court on Thursday observed that flowering parts, when accompanied by leaves and seeds, come under the definition of ‘ganja’ and denied bail to a man – one of the accused – booked under the NDPS Act after DRI, Pune, seized a truck with commercial amount of 835 kg of the drug worth Rs 1.25 crore in 2019.
The truck was on its way from from Yavatmal to Pune via Ahmednagar. The accused were in a car allegedly escorting the truck.
Advocate Chaitanya Pendse with Siddhi Bhosale for the accused, seeking bail said that the seized sample “comprised flowering and fruiting tops and leaves and was sample of about 30 grams” and since it included leaves also, it does not conform to the definition of ganja given in the NDPS Act.
But DRI special counsel Advaith Sethna with advocate Ruju Thakker relied on a Supreme Court judgment to argue that the seized contraband falls under definition of ‘ganja (cannabis)’.
The HC bench of Justice V G Bisht said that the seized sample “comprised flowering and fruiting tops and leaves, and therefore, since the ‘ganja’ was accompanied by the flowering part of the plant along with leaves, prima facie, it would be covered in terms of definition of expression ‘ganja’ given by section 2(iii) (b) of the NDPS Act.”
Section 2 (iii) (b) defines ‘ganja’ as “the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops)”.
Sethnacited a 2009 SC ruling in Shiv Kumar Mishra vs State of Goa where the SC said, “…has been established that the seized ganja consisted of a greenish brown colour leafy and flowery parts of the plant (in moist condition) which, in terms of the definition of the expression ‘ganja’, would include seeds and leaves of the cannabis plant since the seized ganja was accompanied by flowery parts of the plant.”
Justice Bisht said besides considering the “nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find merit in the application” and hence rejected the bail plea filed last year.
Sethna argued that DRI had complied with provisions of the Act in seizure and arrest.
The application argued non-compliance of procedures for disposal of seized drugs.