Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa has held that held that under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the definition of 'Ganja' is confined solely to the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, explicitly excluding seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. 

• The Andhra Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2025). 

What was the Background of Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh (2025) Case? 

• The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati heard Criminal Petition No. 5306 of 2025 on Monday, 23rd June 2025. The Honourable Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa presided over the proceedings. 
• The petitioners Killo Subbarao, aged 48 years, and his wife Killo Jyothi, aged 35 years, both cultivators from Vellapalem Village, Pedabayalu Mandal, ASR District, filed the petition. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by G. Madugula Police Station, was the respondent in the matter. 
• The petitioners sought regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The petition related to Crime No. 01/2025 registered at G. Madugula Police Station. 
• A case was registered against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 
• The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were caught in possession of 32 kilograms of Ganja. The husband and wife duo had purchased Ganja from Odisha at a lower price. They intended to sell the same in Andhra Pradesh at higher prices for profit. 
• The police authorities seized the contraband substance from the possession of the petitioners during the operation. 
• The petitioners were represented by Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, Advocate. The counsel argued that the seized contraband articles could not be classified as 'Ganja' within the statutory definition under Section 2(iii)(b) and (c) of the NDPS Act. 
• The defence contended that the definition of Ganja specifically excludes leaves, flowers, nuts, and stems when not accompanied by flowering tops. The mandatory legal provisions were not properly followed during the seizure and weighing process. 
• The petitioners argued that the police authorities failed to separate the leaves, flowers, nuts, and stems from the flowering tops while weighing the contraband. No adverse presumption under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be justifiably drawn against the petitioners given these procedural lapses. 
• The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State vehemently opposed the bail application. The prosecution argued that the case involved commercial quantity of the contraband substance. The State prayed for dismissal of the petition based on the serious nature of the offence. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court examined the statutory definition of 'Ganja' under the NDPS Act and made significant observations regarding its scope and application. Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act defines ganja as "the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops)." 
• The Court observed that the definition of Ganja under the NDPS Act encompasses only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. The statutory definition expressly excludes seeds and leaves when they are not accompanied by the tops. 
• The Court emphasized that this definition is restrictive in nature and does not include the seeds and leaves of the cannabis plant when found separately. The Court noted that the legislature has deliberately limited the scope of what constitutes 'Ganja' under the Act. 
• The Court identified a significant procedural deficiency in the investigation process. Upon examination of the record, the Court observed that the police authorities had failed to segregate the flowering tops from other plant material while weighing the contraband substance. 
• The Court found that the police, while weighing the contraband, did not separate the leaves, flowers, nuts, and stems from the flowering tops as required by proper procedure. This failure to follow the mandatory segregation process was deemed significant by the Court. 
• The Court considered the submissions made by both parties and thoroughly perused the material on record. The Court acknowledged the validity of the petitioners' counsel's argument regarding the restrictive definition of Ganja under the NDPS Act. 
• The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners had rightly pointed out the limitations in the definition of Ganja under the NDPS Act. The Court agreed that the definition takes in its ambit only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. 
• The Court observed that the definition excludes the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops, making it a restricted definition that does not include all parts of the cannabis plant. 
• After weighing all the evidence and considering the procedural lapses, the Court determined that there were justifiable grounds to release the petitioners on bail. The Court was particularly influenced by the procedural deficiencies in the investigation process. 
• The Court found merit in the petitioners' argument that no adverse presumption under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be drawn against them given the procedural irregularities. The Court concluded that the criminal petition merited allowance based on the legal and procedural grounds established during the hearing. 

What are the Relevant Provisions Referred? 

• Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act prohibits any person from producing, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, warehousing, using, consuming, importing inter-State, exporting inter-State, importing into India, exporting from India or transhipping any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. This prohibition applies except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of the Act or the rules or orders made thereunder. 
• Section 8(c) further provides that in cases where any provision imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation, such activities must also be in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation. 
• Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act prescribes punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis where such contravention involves commercial quantity. Under this provision, the offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years. 
• Section 20(b)(ii)(C) also provides that the accused shall be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. The proviso to this section states that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. 
• Section 25 of the NDPS Act deals with punishment for allowing premises to be used for commission of an offence. This section provides that whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of the Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence. 
• Section 37 of the NDPS Act creates a presumption regarding certain offences under the Act. This section provides for adverse presumption against the accused in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.