Senior Citizen Booked For Growing Cannabis In The Backyard, Karnataka HC Quashes The Case

In a case hearing against a Bengaluru-based senior citizen (Chandrashekar) for growing cannabis plants in the backyard of his house, the Karnataka High Court quashed the case filed against him under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The senior citizen was the petitioner in this case seeking quashing of the FIR filed against him under sections 20(A) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.

Here is what these sections entail:

Section 20(a) talks about punishment for contravention about cannabis plants and cannabis. “Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder.

(a) cultivates any cannabis plant

(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State, or uses cannabis, shall be punishable.”

For any contravention related to section (b), Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) defines the punishment.

If it involves a commercial quantity, “with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees.”

Justice M Nagaprasanna referred to other petitions of this nature and the judgements, and passed an order to quash the case.

Case History And Arguments

On a tip-off, the officials searched the 67-year-old senior’s house in Bengaluru on September 1, 2023, and found the cannabis plants in his property’s backyard. The police filed a chargesheet. The concerned Court took cognisance and issued a summon to Chandrashekar (petitioner).

The petitioner argued that the police found 5-6 plants, which grew along with the other general weeds. Petitioner counsel argued that it could be due to cross pollination and petitioner was not aware of it and had no intention to cultivate it for commercial use.

He further argued the plants taken by the police were not segregated and thus weighed around 27 kilograms, including the roots, stems, leaves, and buds, which is completely contrary to the law. The argument also emphasised that there is no allegation that the petitioner was intentionally cultivating those plants.

On the contrary, the prosecution side argued that the petitioner is prima facie guilty and the amount of cannabis is a matter of discussion in the case trial.

Court Order

The Court noted, “The prosecution has not placed an iota of evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner was cultivating ganja and the quantity of ganja found from the backyard of the petitioner was admittedly weighed along with the entire plants that were uprooted without segregation.”

“It is an admitted fact that segregation of leaves and the actual ganja is not made prior to weighing the same, and the charge sheet is filed. Therefore, the charge sheet is filed blatantly contrary to law, as laid down by the Apex Court and followed by this Court in the afore-quoted judgments.”

In its order, the Court quashed the entire previous proceedings of the case.