Karnataka High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Senior Citizen Over Backyard Cannabis Plants
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against 67-year-old Chandrashekar, a Bengaluru resident who was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for allegedly cultivating cannabis in his backyard. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, held that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove intentional cultivation, a prerequisite under the NDPS Act.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a police search on September 1, 2023, at Chandrashekar’s residence in Jayanagar, Bengaluru, following a tip-off. Police claimed to have found five to six cannabis plants in the backyard and registered a case under Sections 20(a) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. The subsequent chargesheet alleged illegal cultivation.
Chandrashekar, however, contended that the plants were naturally growing weeds among other vegetation and that he had no knowledge or intent to cultivate cannabis. He argued that cross-pollination may have led to the presence of the plants and highlighted procedural lapses during the seizure.
Flawed Procedure and Lack of Evidence
A key point raised by the defense was the improper method of weighing the seized material. The police allegedly weighed the entire batch—including roots, leaves, stems, buds, and even plastic bags—together, totaling 27.36 kilograms, without properly segregating the contraband. This, the defense argued, was contrary to legal standards and rendered the evidence unreliable.
The prosecution insisted that the quantity and circumstances warranted a trial, arguing a prima facie case had been established.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision
Justice Nagaprasanna, after reviewing the material on record, held that no evidence of deliberate cultivation was presented by the prosecution. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alakh Ram v. State of U.P., which clarified that naturally growing cannabis plants do not constitute cultivation under the NDPS Act.
The High Court concluded that the mere presence of cannabis plants, absent proof of human intervention, was not enough to justify prosecution. Consequently, the case against Chandrashekar was quashed.
Significance of the Ruling
This verdict reaffirms the principle that intentionality is central to criminal liability under the NDPS Act. It also serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to strictly follow procedural norms and evidentiary requirements in narcotics cases. Failure to do so not only jeopardizes the integrity of investigations but risks unjustly implicating individuals.
