The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR and trial court proceedings against the petitioner for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(a)(i), and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), thereby allowing the prosecution to continue.
On 17 April 2025, excise officials, acting on credible information, conducted a search of a premises rented by the petitioner in Thiruvananthapuram and seized five cannabis plants of varying sizes, along with 5 grams of ganja seeds and dried cannabis branches from the petitioner’s bedroom.
The complaint alleged cultivation and possession of cannabis in violation of the NDPS Act provisions. The petitioner argued that the seizures did not attract the statutory offences as the plants lacked flowering or fruiting tops, and ‘cultivation’ did not extend to potted plants under the statute. The petitioner also disputed his actual possession or residence in the premises from which the contraband was seized.
The petition was filed seeking interference with the registration of FIR and proceedings before the Additional Sessions Court initiated against the petitioner. The prosecution opposed the quashing application asserting the strength of their case based on credible seizure and evidence.
The Bench comprising Justice C.S. Dias examined the definitions and statutory provisions and held that a ‘cannabis plant’ is not contingent on the presence of flowering or fruiting tops to qualify as such. It clarified that ‘ganja’ is defined separately as the flowering or fruiting tops, while cultivation under the Act includes planting or nurturing cannabis plants regardless of whether they are in the earth or pots.
The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that pot cultivation falls outside the statute’s scope, noting that the language of the statute did not restrict cultivation to earth only. It also observed that issues of possession and residence were factual questions to be decided at trial stage rather than in a quashing petition.
The court cited judgments reinforcing the broad scope of criminal liability under the NDPS Act for cultivation and possession of cannabis-related substances. The court reiterated that the powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and not for pre-trial mini-trials of factual issues.
In result, the petition for quashing was dismissed with liberty granted to raise contentions at trial.
Cases relied on:
1. Kunju and others v. State of Kerala and another [1988 (2) KLT 672]
2. State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335]
Cases referred to:
1. Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madal Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330]
2. HMT Watches Ltd. v. Abida M.A. and another [(2015) 11 SCC 776]
3. Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) [2025 KHC 6914]
4. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others [(2023) 18 SCC 399]
5. Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2022) 16 SCC 117]
5. Monica Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [(2008) 8 SCC 781]
Cases distinguished:
1. Alakh Ram v. State of U.P [(2004) 1 SCC 766
2. Narendran Purakunnel Rajakkadu, Udumbanchola v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC 4777]
3. Killo Subbarao and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2025 SC OnLine AP 2280]
4. K. Rejji and others v. State by Murdeshwar Police Station, Karwar [2009 SCC OnLine Kar 325]
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Sri Suman Chakravarthy, Smt K.R. Rija, Smt Brejitha Unnikrishnan, Smt Surya R., Shri Sudeesh K.E., Shri Prahladh S.P., Advocates
For the Respondent- State: Sri C.S. Hrithwik, Senior Public Prosecutor
