S. No. 2 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CrlM No. 1414/2025 In Crl. R. No. 44/2025 UT of J&K through P/S Zainapora …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG Vs. Sabzar Ahmad Dar ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 18.11.2025 Crl R. No. 44/2025: 1. Setting-aside of order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Shopian (for short “the Sessions Court”), in case titled “UT of J&K through SHO Zainpora Shopian vs. Sabzar Ahmad Dar”, is sought for in this petition. 2. The Trial Court while discharging the accused has made following observation:- “Taking into account the lackadaisical approach of the I.O of this case namely Mr. Muneer Hussain No.477/CID then posted as Police Post Wachi who is the maker of the charge sheet, let a robkar be framed against him for misleading the court and for wastage of court time and also for curtaining the liberty of the accused. Notice be accordingly issued against him as to why he should not be punished for misleading the court and for unlawful custody/retrain of the accused. Furthermore the person who as supervisory officer has authorized the I.O. to present the charge sheet before the court is also warned to be careful in future and Sr. Superintendent of Police District Shopian is hereby directed to initiated an enquiry against the supervisory officer who has directed the I.O to present the sheet before the court and the assignments relating to such cases as supervisory officer shall be taken away from him. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned quarters. Charge sheet stands disposed off. Accused is discharged for the aforesaid offences allegedly leveled against him in this FIR and is relieved from the bail and personal bonds. File after its due completion be consigned to records.” 3. The petition challenging the order impugned, is time barred, therefore, the petitioner has also moved an application seeking extension of time to condone the delay. 4. Before adverting to the application seeking condonation of delay, it is deemed appropriate to examine whether the main petition discloses any merit. 5. The charge sheet stands presented before the Court of Sessions, Shopian, against the respondent/accused for offences punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. The allegation pertains to the possession of bhang, which, according to the petitioner, constitutes an offence under the aforesaid provision. 6. The learned Sessions Court, upon consideration of the material on record, has passed a detailed and well-reasoned order supported by relevant judicial precedents. It is manifest from the FSL report that the substance recovered from the accused is bhang. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether possession of bhang attracts penal consequences under the NDPS Act. The prosecution was required to establish that the substance recovered falls within the definition of “narcotic drug” or “psychotropic substance” as enumerated in the Act and the Schedule appended thereto. 7. This issue is no longer res integra. It has been conclusively settled in Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002 (3) Cr.CC 296, Amr Nath Gupta v. State of U.P., 2005 (3) ACR 2470, and Samid v. State of U.P., 1995 (ALJ) 1108, that the recovery of bhang does not constitute an offence under the NDPS Act. In light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, the respondent/accused could not have been charged under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act, and the Sessions Court has rightly discharged him. 8. It is further noticed that the petition has been filed after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, and no plausible explanation has been offered for the delay. The petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause warranting condonation of delay or justifying interference with the impugned order. The petition appears to have been filed at the expense of the public exchequer without proper scrutiny or application of mind. 9. It is expected of the authority granting sanction, as well as the officer seeking such sanction, to satisfy themselves regarding the merit of the case before initiating litigation. The petitioner is advised to remain cautious in future and to refrain from filing frivolous and unwarranted petitions that unnecessarily burden the judicial system and result in avoidable wastage of the Court’s valuable time. 10. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Resultantly application seeking condonation of delay is also dismissed. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 18.11.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 20.11.2025 10.58