JANGIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Jangir Singh has filed the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.93 dated 14.09.2017 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') registered at Police Station Budhlada, District Mansa.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner was living the life of aNihang Singh and was found to be in possession of Bhang contained in three bags. The total quantity of Bhang came to be 31 kg including the weight of three gunny bags. Learned counsel further submits that possession of leaves of Cannabis plants (Bhang) without top is not an offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. It does not fall within the definition of Cannabis (hemp) as defined under Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act. The provisions of Section 20 of the Act are not applicable to the recovery effected from the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel also submits that the alleged recovery may be in violation of Section 3(13) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, which is punishable under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act. Learned counsel also submits that the provisions of NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case as rigor of Section 37 of the Act does not apply. The petitioner was arrested in the case on 14.09.2017 and he has undergone custody of 10 months. No purpose would be served by keeping him in custody as all the witnesses are official witnesses and there is no possibility that he may influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. No other case of similar nature is pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Dilip vs. State, Bail Application No.2330 of 2008 decided on 02.07.2010 wherein reference was decided by holding that neither the NDPS Act nor notification dated 18.11.2009 are applicable. The percentage of THC in a sample of Charas by itself cannot be determinative of the purity of the sample. A test resulting in the quantification of the percentage content of THC is neither relevant nor necessary for the purposes of considering the bail or while awarding sentence under the NDPS Act. Section 21 of the NDPS Act deals with 'phychotropic substances' and has nothing to do with the punishment in relation to cannabis (charas, ganja or a mixture thereof) and cannabis plants, which are specifically dealt with under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon judgments rendered by this Court in Gurdial Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2004 2 RCR(Cri) 745, Arjun Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2004 4 RCR(Cri) 506, Ajaib Singh vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Misc. No. M-23788 of 2015 decided on 11.01.2016, judgment rendered by the Orissa High Court in Nirmal Chandra Sahoo vs. State of Orissa, 1996 CrLJ 1902, judgments rendered by the Rajasthan High Court in Manjee vs. State of Rajasthan, 1996 2 RCR(Cri) 258, Sevaram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1993 CrLJ 2503 and judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in Madhukar vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2002 BCR(Cri) 779 in support of her contentions.