S. No. 74 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Crl R No. 34/2024 UT of J&K Through P/S Anantnag …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Illyas Nazir Laway, GA Vs. Ashiq Hussain Sheikh ...Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 17.11.2025 Crl R. No. 34/2024: 1. Setting-aside of order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag (for short "the Sessions Court"), in case titled "UT of J&K through SHO Police Station, Anantnag vs. Ashiq Hussain Sheikh", is sought for in this petition. 2. The Trial Court while discharging the accused has made following observations: - “Accused present FSL report submitted by the prosecution alongwith the challan reveals that seized material 7 kgs and 500 grams from the accused was Bhang. In view of Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punja and Haryana in case Gardial Singh vs State of Punjab, 2002 (3), Cr.CC 296 and of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case Amr Nath Gupta vs State of U.P 2005 (3) ACR, 2470 and also in case Samid vs State of U.P 1995 (ALJ) 1108 recovery of Bhang does not constitute any offence under NDPS Act. In view of the above discussion when Bhang is not covered in any offence of NDPS Act, the accused as such is discharged. He stands released from his bail bonds. The file after 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, Anantnag, 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 merits 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 17.11.2025 Shabroz