- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6041 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: MR. RUSHABH SHRAMIK MASTURLAL S/O SHRAMIK MASTURLAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OF M/S. ROLLING FILTERS (OPC) PRIVATE LTD., R/AT NO.16/1, BANNERGATTA ROAD, ARAKERE, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. KARIYAPPA.N.A, ADVOCATE) AND: UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT, BANGALORE. OFFICE AT H. NO.7/1-2, PRIYANKA VILLAS, RAMANNA GARDEN, KATTIGENAHALLI, BAGALURU MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA POST, BENGALURU – 560 063. (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, BANGALORE – 560 001). …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL A/W SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, CGC) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED IN SPL.C.C.NO.2251/2024 R Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE XXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES, BANGALORE FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 8(c) R/W 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27-A, 28 AND 29 OF NDPS ACT, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF NCB FILE NO.48/1/13/2024/BZU ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-C AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW. THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23.07.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CAV ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “ (1) To quash the complaint filed in Spl.C.C.No.2251/2024 which is pending on the file of the Hon’ble XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Bangalore for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27-A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act which is arising out of NCB File No.48/1/13/2024 BZU on the file of the respondent as per Annexure-‘C’, as an abuse of process of law. (2) To set aside the order of cognizance and issue of summons dated: 30.11.2024 passed in Spl.C.C.No.2251/2024 on the file of Hon’ble XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Bangalore for Offences U/s 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act as per Annexure-‘B’ as illegal and abuse of process of law. (3) To quash the entire proceedings pending in Spl.C.C.No.2251/2024 on the file of Hon’ble XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 Cases, Bangalore city for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27-A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, which is arising out of NCB File No.48/1/13/2024/BZU on the file of respondent as an abuse of process of law. (4) To grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.” 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 27.05.2024 at about 4 p.m., the respondent received information that parcels lying at Fedex Express Cargo Terminal, KIAL road, Devanahalli, Bangalore, imported from USA contained Narcotic Drugs and in pursuance of the same, the respondent collected the 3 parcels on 28.05.2024 and issued summons to the petitioner – accused No.1 and one Sri.Sunny Suresh Nair – accused No.2 and thereafter, arrested the petitioner and sent samples to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, on 01.07.2024 for testing the said goods which were chocolates in the form of gummies. After obtaining the test report dated 31.07.2024, the respondent filed a complaint before the Sessions Court, Bangalore, which took cognizance against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act by arraigning the petitioner as accused No.1 along with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 other accused persons. Aggrieved by the impugned compliant, order and proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.2251/2024 pending before the Special Court, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. It is a matter of record that though the bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the trial court, this Court in Crl.P.No.1429/2025, allowed the said petition vide final order dated 21.03.2025, thereby enlarging the petitioner – accused No.1 on bail. 4. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned ASG for the respondent and perused the material on record. 5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the submits that the impugned proceedings are illegal and contrary to law and facts and the same deserve to be quashed. Learned Senior counsel would elaborate his submissions as hereunder:- (i) The seized substances are gummies / food supplements and not Ganja as defined under Section 2(ii) (b) of the NDPS Act - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 and as such, the seized substances do not come under the purview of the NDPS Act. (ii) The seized substance are in the form of gummies like chocolates etc., which are good supplements and the allegation that it contains ingredients cannabis is false. (iii) In order to ascertain whether the seized substance contains Ganja or not, in addition to the quantative test, it is necessary / essential to conduct a quantitative analysis test to determine the quantity of cannabis / hemp plant to find out the percentage of THC (Tetra Hydro Cannabinol) contained in the samples and without doing so, the inconclusive / incomplete / inadequate test would not have been made the basis to file the charge sheet, which deserves to be quashed. (iv) As per Rule 14 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, quantitative analysis test has to be conducted within one month from the date of seizure and without doing so, the charge sheet is vitiated and the same deserves to be quashed. (v) The complaint, charge sheet, documents etc., indicate that the petitioner is a Director of M/s.Rolling Filters Pvt. Ltd., which - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 is a private limited company and which has not been made a party to the proceedings, in the absence of which, the impugned proceedings are not maintainable in the light of Section 38 of the NDPS Act and the same are liable to be quashed. (vi) Regulation 2.16 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, permit import of food products / food supplements containing Cannabidiol and Cannabinol containing THC up to a certain quantity and percentage and without conducting the quantitative analysis test to determine the percentage of THC, filing of charge sheet is impermissible and deserves to be quashed. (vii) The respondent conducted inventory in the absence of the petitioner and the sample drawn in his absence cannot be used as a evidence and the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. (viii) The bulk substance seized from the petitioner was disposed of by the respondent without following the mandatory procedure provided in Section 52A of the NDPS Act in the absence of the petitioner and without issuing notice to him, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 (ix) The impugned proceedings based on voluntary statements of petitioner and co-accused are vitiated on this ground also. (x) The respondent has filed the impugned charge sheet without recovering the seized substance from the possession of the petitioner but from the Fedex Express office without following the controlled delivery procedure as contemplated under Section 50A of the NDPS Act. (xi) The impugned proceedings pursuant to the search, seizure and inventory without following the mandatory procedure under Sections 42, 50, 52, 52A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act is vitiated and deserves to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) Dhanaram Patel vs. State of Karnataka and Another - Crl.P. No.: 10262 of 2024 dated 20.01.2025; (ii) Shekappa and Another vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - Crl.P. No.: 27090 of 2023, dated 14.03.2025; (iii) Bharat Chaudhary vs. Union of India - 2021 (20) SCC 50; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 (iv) Aneeta Hada vs. God Father Travels and Tours- 2012 (5) SCC 661; (v) Ravindranatha Bajpe vs. Mangalore Special Economic Zone - 2022 (15) SCC 430; (vi) Nagaraj.J @ Wilson Garden Naga vs. State of Karnataka - W.P. No. 13661 of 2024 dated 29.04.2025; (vii) Bharat Aambale vs. State of Chhattisgarh - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 110; (viii) Mohammed Khalid vs. State of Telangana - 2024 (5) SCC 393; (ix) State (by NCB), Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta - 2022 (12) SCC 633; (x) Najmunisha vs. Abdul Hamid Chandmiya - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 520; (xi) Balwinder Singh vs. Narcotics Control Bureau - 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1213. 6. 6. Per contra, learned ASG for the respondent would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed by placing reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Hira Singh vs. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 Union of India – (2020) 20 SCC 272 and (ii) Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif – (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3848. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that prior to filing the impugned charge sheet, the respondent obtained a Test Report dated 31.07.2024, wherein it is stated that the seized substance contains Delta-9 THC, Delta-8 THC, cannabidiol and cannabinol; however, the percentage of THC in the seized substances is not forthcoming and conspicuously absent in the test report, which merely speaks about the existence of THC without stating its percentage; under identical circumstances, in Dhanaram Patel’s case supra, this Court held that in the absence of any finding as regards the percentage of THC, the report would be inconclusive / flawed / indefinite / indecisive / unconfirmed and indeterminate report, which could not have been made the basis to file the charge sheet or incriminate the petitioner for the alleged offences. In the said judgment, this Court held as under:- “2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 05.08.2022, the 2nd respondent – Dy.S.P. conducted a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 raid of the petitioner’s shop M/s.Rakesh Zarda Agency and seized 7 plastic bags containing chocolates by name “Atul Munnakka” to an extent of 51.470 Kgs and arrested the petitioner, who was subsequently released on bail vide order dated 17.08.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1187/2022. On 18.08.2022, the Investigating Officer / Excise Inspector did an Inventory and drew samples of the seized items and forwarded the same for chemical analysis to the Central Chemical Laboratory (for short ‘CC Laboratory’), Department of Excise, Bangalore, on 24.08.2022. The said Laboratory submitted a report dated 20.09.2022 interalia stating that as per the two types of colour test conducted by it, the samples had tested ‘positive’ for having contained cannabis and rendered an opinion that the samples are confirmed as ‘genus of cannabis (ganja)’. 3. Subsequently, on 04.02.2023, the Investigating Officer submitted a requisition to the aforesaid Laboratory seeking a proper report as to the quantity, percentage etc., of THC (Tetra Hydro Cannabinol) contained in the samples and their effect on the human body so as to ascertain whether the samples contained ganja or not for the purpose of filing the charge sheet. The said CC Laboratory submitted a reply dated 04.02.2023 interalia stating that the percentage of THC in the samples cannot be ascertained, since necessary equipment in this regard was not available to arrive at a conclusion as to whether ganja was found in the mixed chocolates. 4. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed a charge sheet in Spl.C.No.249/2023 on 05.02.2023 against the petitioner - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 for alleged offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. In the said proceedings, the petitioner – accused having entered appearance, filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 26.03.2024 and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for the respondents and perused the material on record. 6. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the trial court and the impugned proceedings are illegal and contrary to law and facts and the same deserve to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Bharath Choudhary vs. Union of India – (2021) 2 SCC 50; (ii) Union of India vs. Balmukund – (2009) 12 SCC 161; (iii) Mujeeb Mehaboob vs. State by Kalasipalya Police – (2012) SCC Online KAR 9043; (iv) Chandru Kunthur Raghuvegowda vs. State by Inspector of Customs – ILR 2017 KAR 4053; (v) Bajinder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh – 2010 SCC Online HP 2082; (vi) Sunil vs. State – Criminal Appeal No.267/2007 & connected matters Dated 11.12.2009; (vii) K.K.Reji vs. State by Murudeshwar Police Station – 2009 SCC Online KAR 325; (viii) Dayaram Singh and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Excise Inspection Zone - 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1188 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 7. Per contra, learned Addl.SPP for the respondents – State submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. A perusal of the CC Laboratory Report dated 20.09.2022 submitted by the CC Laboratory will indicate that it has come to the erroneous conclusion that since the samples tested ‘positive’ for existence of cannabis, the samples are confirmed as ‘genus of cannabis(ganja)’; in this context, the CC laboratory failed to appreciate that ganja was not a genus of cannabis as incorrectly stated in the Report; in fact, it is the extent / percentage / quantity of THC in the sample which will determine / decide as to whether the sample could be classified as ‘ bhang / ganja / charas’ ; it is also significant to note that the extent / percentage / quantity that would be germane and material for such classification is as under:- Bhang Ganja Charas Percentage of THC present 0-15% 15-25% 25-40% 9. As stated supra, the aforesaid details and parameters so as to confirm the existence of ganja are conspicuously absent in the Report dated 20.09.2022. Under these circumstances, the aforesaid inconclusive CC Laboratory Report dated 20.09.2022 not only incorrectly states that the samples are confirmed as ‘genus of cannabis (ganja)’ but also does not state extent / percentage / quantity of THC so as to classify the sample as containing ganja and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 consequently, the aforesaid inconclusive report could not have been made the basis to file the charge sheet and as such, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. 10. The undisputed material on record will also indicate that since the said Report dated 20.09.2022 was inconclusive and the percentage, quantity etc., of THC found in the sample were not forthcoming in the Report which also did not state anything as to its effect on the human body, the I.O. deemed it appropriate to address a communication dated 04.02.2023 not only seeking clarification as to whether there was ganja in the samples or not, but also putting forth specific query regarding the percentage, quantity etc., of THC found in the sample as well as its effect on the human body for the purpose of filing charge sheet; however, in response to the said query, the CC Laboratory issued a reply dated 04.02.2023 categorically stating that for want / lack of requisite equipment, the contents, percentage, quantity of THC cannot be detected to ascertain the presence of ganja in the samples. Despite the initial inconclusive report and the aforesaid communication between the I.O. and the Laboratory, all of which, clearly indicated that the presence of ganja could not be ascertained, the 1st respondent proceeded to file the impugned charge sheet, which is liable to be quashed on this ground also. 11. As stated supra, the petitioner filed an application before the trial court seeking discharge on the ground that the very existence / presence of THC including its percentage, quantity etc., having not been ascertained nor - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 determined by the I.O. or the laboratory, the petitioner was entitled to be discharged from the impugned proceedings. However, the trial court without appreciating the aforesaid facts and circumstances proceeded to reject the application on the ground that the CC Laboratory report dated 20.09.2022 confirmed existence of ganja, which was a genus of cannabis; in this regard, it is relevant to note that despite having referred to the aforesaid report and subsequent communication between the I.O. and the Laboratory which clearly indicated that existence, presence, percentage, quantity etc., of THC was neither conclusive nor ascertained or determined, the trial court proceeded to summarily reject the application based on surmises and conjectures and without assigning cogent or valid reasons and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 12. The trial court also committed an error in failing to appreciate that the I.O. himself was unsure as to whether the sample contained ganja or not and it was in that circumstance that he thought it appropriate to seek clarification from the laboratory in this regard; having sought for such clarification as is clear from the communication dated 04.02.2023, to which the laboratory replied stating specifically that due to lack/want of equipment, it was not possible to answer the queries put forth by the I.O., in the absence of sufficient, valid, legal or acceptable material before the I.O. which established existence of ganja in the samples, the I.O. was clearly not justified in filing the impugned charge sheet based on an inconclusive report and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 failure to appreciate this, has resulted in erroneous conclusion. 13. The trial court failed to consider and appreciate Regulation 1.18 of the Standing Instructions No.1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi, or Rule 14 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling & Disposal) Rules, 2022, which stipulate that both qualitative and quantitative tests have to be conducted for the purpose of determining the existence of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances; in the instant case, as stated supra, the said Regulations and Rules have not been complied with by the respondents, which is yet another circumstance to set aside the impugned order and quash the impugned proceedings. 14. In Mujib Mehaboob’s case supra, this Court held as under:- “12. In the case on hand, the alleged seizure from this petitioner is said to be 1 kg 195 gms. and it certainly falls below the commercial quantity. In the decision referred to by the petitioner's Counsel viz., Bajinder Singh's case, the Division Bench of the said High Court has held that, as per the definition under Section 2(iii)(a) of the NDPS Act, it is the separated resin alone which constitute charas and as far as the percentage is concerned, insofar as ganja is concerned, it has been held in the said case that tetrahydrocannabinol are found not only in charas, but also in ganja and the extent of the said ingredient has to be 25% in ganja and 25 to 40 % in charas.” 15. In Bharat Choudhary’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- “12. After carefully examining the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 having cursorily glanced at the records, we are of the opinion that the impugned order [Union of India v. Bharat Chaudhary, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 6554] cancelling the bail granted in favour of Bharat Chaudhary (A-4), is not sustainable in view of the fact that the records sought to be relied upon by the prosecution show that one test report dated 6-12- 2019, two test reports dated 17-12-2019 and one test report dated 21-12-2019 in respect of the sample pills/tablets drawn and sent for testing by the prosecuting agency conclude with a note appended by the Assistant Commercial Examiner at the foot of the reports stating that “quantitative analysis of the samples could not be carried out for want of facilities. 13. In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act. Further, a large number of the tablets that have been seized by DRI admittedly contain herbs/medicines meant to enhance male potency and they do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act. Most importantly, none of the tablets were seized by the prosecution during the course of the search conducted, either at the office or at the residence of A-4 at Jaipur, on 16-3- 2020. Reliance on printouts of WhatsApp messages downloaded from the mobile phone and devices seized from the office premises of A-4 cannot be treated at this stage as sufficient material to establish a live link between him and A-1 to A-3, when even as per the prosecution, scientific reports in respect of the said devices is still awaited. 14. In the absence of any psychotropic substance found in the conscious possession of A-4, we are of the opinion that mere reliance on the statement made by A-1 to A-3 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is too tenuous a ground to sustain the impugned order dated 15-7-2021 [Union of India v. Bharat Chaudhary, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 6554] . This is all the more so when such a reliance runs contrary to the ruling in Tofan Singh [Tofan Singh v. State of T.N., (2021) 4 SCC 1 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 246] . The impugned order [Union of India v. Bharat Chaudhary, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 6554] qua A-4 is, accordingly, quashed and set aside - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 and the order dated 2-11-2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, EC & NDPS cases, is restored. As for Raja Chandrasekharan (A-1), since the charge-sheet has already been filed and by now the said accused has remained in custody for over a period of two years, it is deemed appropriate to release him on bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court.” 16. In Bal Mukund’s case supra, the Apex court held as under:- 36. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. Standing Instruction 1/88, which had been issued under the Act, lays down the procedure for taking samples. The High Court has noticed that PW 7 had taken samples of 25 gm each from all the five bags and then mixed them and sent to the laboratory. There is nothing to show that adequate quantity from each bag had been taken. It was a requirement in law. 37. There is another infirmity in the prosecution case. Section 55 of the Act reads as under: “55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.—An officer in charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer in charge of the police station.” PW 7 did not testify as to which of the bags seized had been sent for analysis. No statement had been made by him that the bags produced were the bags in question which were seized or the contraband was found in them. 38. Furthermore, we are dealing with a judgment of acquittal. The High Court, for good and sufficient reasons, had arrived at findings of fact both with regard to voluntariness of the purported confessions made by the respondents as also compliance with the mandatory statutory provisions - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 vis-à-vis directions issued by the Central Government in making search, seizure as also taking of samples for the purpose of chemical examination having been doubted, we do not see any reason why we should take a contrary view as it is well known that the appellate court would not interfere with a judgment of acquittal only because another view is possible. On the other hand, if two views are possible, it is trite, the appellate court shall not interfere. (See Animireddy Venkata Ramana v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [(2008) 5 SCC 368 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 600] )” 17. In Chandru Kunthur Raghuvegowda’s case supra, this Court held as under:- “19. The report dated January 13, 2017 issued by the Custom House Laboratory, Chennai, shows that the six samples answered the test for presence of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride. The foot note contained in the report is categorical to the effect that ‘quantitative analysis’ of the sample was not carried out. Thus, there has been infraction of Standing Instruction No. 1/88. Compliance with the ‘Standing Instruction’ is a requirement of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bal Mukund (supra).” 18. In Bajinder Singh’s case supra, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held as under:- “9. It has been further submitted by Mr. Chitkara that stuff recovered as charas is not charas but was dried leaves of cannabis plant. In view of the decision of this Court in Panne Lal v. State of H.P., 2010 (2) Crimes 558 (H.P.), the possession of such recovered good cannot be said to be contraband good and possession of which is not an offense In support of his submissions Mr. Chitkara has referred some paragraphs of the above said judgment. For convenience, same are given as below : - “9. In all the six cases stuff, which, according to the prosecution, was Charas, had been seized by Police Officers, on search of the person or baggage or buildings or conveyance of the appellants/accused. Samples were separated from the recovered stuff and - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 sent to the Chemical Examiners. In the following four cases, samples were sent to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Chandigarh: 1. Sunil v. State (Cr.A No. 267/2007) 2. Surinder Singh v. State (Cr.A No. 311/2007) 3. Panne Lal v. State (Cr.A No. 45/2008) 4. State v. Jeet Ram (Cr.A No. 363/2008) 10. In all the aforesaid cases, reports given by the above said of the Forensic Science Laboratory are similar, rather verbatim the same. They read as follows: RESULTS OF THE EXAMINATION Various laboratory tests were carried out with the exhibit-1 under reference for identification. Chemical tests and chromatographic analysis indicated the cannabinols including tetrahydrocannabinol. Microscopy indicated the presence of characteristic cystolithic hair. The results thus obtained have been analyzed as given below: Exhibit-1 is a sample of charas. Shri R.S. Verma, who signed these reports, as Director of the said Forensic Science Laboratory, was examined as a witness, in two cases. In one case, i.e. Panne Lal v. State (Cr.A No. 45/2008), he was examined as a witness of the prosecution and in another, i.e. State v. Jeet Ram (Cr.A No. 363/2008), he was examined as a witness of the defence. 15. Dr. R.S. Verma, who was examined as PW-11, by the trial Court, in the case giving rise to appeal titled Panne Lal v. State (Cr.A No. 45/2008), admitted that Charas is separated resin from cannabis plant. He stated that he tested the resin to identify it with Charas and that resin containing tetrahydrocannabinol is Charas and that other resins, like that of pine tree, pear, peach, do not contain tetrahydrocannabinol. His statement that he tested the resin to identify Charas, by conducting a test to find whether it contained tetrahydrocannabinol, itself suggests that he proceeded to analyse the stuff, assuming the same to be resin, without conducting any specific test to ascertain whether it was resin or something other than resin. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 16. While appearing as DW-1 before the trial Court, in another, i.e. State v. Jeet Ram (Cr.A No. 363/2008), he (Dr. R.S. Verma) that it is tetrahydrocannabinol which is the active agent in the resin and that it is the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol, which shows that the sample stuff is a cannabis product. His saying that presence of tetrahydrocannabinol that the stuff is cannabis product clearly suggests that the test conducted by was to find out if the stuff was a product of cannabis and not the specific product, defined as Charas in Section 2(iii)(a) of the Act. Cannabis are. Three of them are defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act. There may be others also, which are not included in the definition of cannabis (hemp), Section 2(iii) of the Act. And one such is bhang, i.e. the leaves of the plant, of is not an offense We may observe that finely crushed green leaves of cannabis pressed into mass would also give a look similar to that of Charas. He stated that there was resin present in the sample, but he did not mention its percentage in his report, as the same was not required to be mentioned. His statement that resin was present in the sample indicates that the entire stuff was not resin. Further, his statement that the presence of indicates that the stuff is cannabis product, shows that tetrahydrocannabinol is to be present not only in resin/Charas but also in other forms of cannabis hemp), i.e. ganja and mixture, as defined in Sections 2(iii)(b) and 2(iii)(c) of the, As a matter of fact, tetrahydrocannabinol is present not only in the three forms of cannabis (hemp), defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, but also in its, stem and even the seeds, as we would be indicating in the later part of this and, therefore, the mere presence of tetrahydrocannabinol or cystolithic hair, is the fabric of the cannabis plant, do not mean that the analysed stuff is, means separated resin, per Section 2(iii)(a) of the Act, and not any other product of cannabis. 17. In the remaining two cases, reports are given by Shri A.K., of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga (H.P.), who was examined as a Court witness by one of us (Surjit Singh, J) sitting in single. In one of his reports, Ex. PX, in case titled Karuna Shankar Puri v. State (Cr.A No. 500/2008), he has stated that Charas is a mass and resin is an ingredient of Charas, which on testing was found present. Mention in the result of analysis suggests that the witness is not even - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 of the definition of Charas. Resin is not an ingredient of Charas but it is the separated resin alone which is Charas, per definition given in Section 2(iii)(a) of the Act. 18. Chemical Examiner, Shri A.K. Wasuja, when examined as a Court witness, by this Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 2008, titled as Karuna Shankar Puri v. State, stated that he did not agree with the definition of “Charas” as given in Section 2(iii)(a) of the Act and that as a matter of fact “Charas” was composition of about 400 substances. In of this claim, he relied upon Ex. C-1, comprising four sheets of some literature downloaded by him from the Internet. Ex. C-1 does not pertain to Charas but Marijuana or Marihuana, which means cannabis. When his attention was drawn to this fact, he admitted that Ex. C-1 pertained to Marijuana. 19. “Marijuana” as per Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Volume 11, means the dried leaves and flowering tops of the pistillate hemp plants that are the source of the drug cannabin and are sometimes smoked in cigarettes with consequent effect of the drug on the higher nerve centres to produce peculiar psychic disturbances and other words for “Marijuana” as per the aforesaid Dictionary are bhang, ganja and hashish. That means “Marijuana” includes not only Charas, ganja and mixture, as defined in clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Section 2(iii) of the Act, respectively, but also dried leaves and other parts of cannabis plant. 20. From a reading of the statements of Dr. R.S. Verma, Director of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, examined as PW-11 in the appeal titled Panne Lal v. State and as DW-1 in appeal titled State v. Jeet Ram by the trial Courts; and Shri A.K. Wasuja, Chemical Examiner, examined as CW-1 by a Single Judge Bench of this Court in appeal titled as Karuna Shankar Puri v. State, it appears that both the Experts are unaware of the term “Charas” as defined and made an under the Act and that the tests were conducted by them to find if the stuff tetrahydrocannabinol and cystolithic hair. They did not conduct any test to ascertain if the stuff was resin. On the contrary, their statements and reports, particularly report Ex. PW-9/D given in case titled Raj Kumar v. State, show that the samples, which were examined - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 were not resin/Charas in entirety but contained some unspecified and perhaps uncertained quantity of Charas/resin. 21. We have noticed hereinabove that tetrahydrocannabinols are found not only in the Charas, which means separated resin of cannabis plant but also in ganja, as defined in Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act and even in the leaves, seeds and stems of cannabis plant. We have observed so, on the basis of authoritative literature. 22. In The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, or THC is defined as active constituent of cannabis (Marijuana/Marihuana) isolated from Indian hemp plant (cannabis stiva). 23. In Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Sixth Edition, it is mentioned at Page-10.54, in answer to Question No. 10.21 that tetrahydrocannabinol-THC is active principal and it is present in bhang to the extent of 15 per cent, in ganja to the extent of 25 per cent and in Charas to the extent of 25-40 per cent. 24. In Principles and Practice of Forensic Medicine, First Edition, by Dr. Umadethan, it is mentioned at Page-486 that principal psycho active substance in cannabis (Marijuana, Marihuana) is delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol and besides this there are cannabinol, cannabidiol, cannabinoleic acid and 400 other cannabinoids. 25. Cannabis, according to Lyon's Medical Jurisprudence in India, Tenth Edition (Page-747), includes bhang, which means dried leaves, ganja, flowering tops, Charas, the resin which exudes from the leaves and branches, which is often adulterated and Majun, a sweetmeat prepared with bhang. 26. As a matter of fact, tetrahydrocannabinol is present in the resin of cannabis. Resin is present in the leaves, flowering and fruiting tops, stem and seeds of the plant. Therefore, tetrahydrocannabinol will be found even in the leaves, stem, seeds and the flowering and fruiting tops of cannabis plant. But resin is Charas, when it is separated from the plant or its aforesaid parts. Presence of resin in the aforesaid parts does not make such parts Charas nor is the resin in such parts Charas, unless separated, in view of the definition in Section 2(iii)(a) of the Act. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 27. Learned Advocate General, who appeared for the State, submitted that a similar question was raised before a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court, in Dhanpalsingh Barunsingh Thakur and others v. State of Guajrat, 1995 Cri. L.J. 3751, and the learned Judges, relying upon the report of the Chemical Examiner, held that the entire sample stuff was Charas. A reading of the judgment shows that the Expert, who appeared as PW-1 based his opinion not only on his own tests but also the report of Botanical Expert. The substance was found to contain cannabis species, as it gave positive result, when subjected to para-aminon phenol test and thin layer chromatography test. Contention raised in that case was that the Expert had not given the opinion that the substance was resin obtained from cannabis plant or a concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish. No doubt, the Expert in that case did not specifically say that the sample stuff was resin of cannabis plant but he conducted two tests, i.e. paraaminon phenol test and thin layer chromatography test and came to the conclusion that the sample was Charas, which meant resin. 28. In the present case, as noticed hereinabove, it is made out from the reports, particularly report Ex. PW-9/D as also the testimony of the two Experts, namely Dr. R.S. Verma and Shri A.K. Wasuja, that the entire stuff was not resin and that the tests, which they conducted, were meant to ascertain whether the stuff was cannabis (Marijuana) and not for Charas. Therefore, the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, referred to above, does not help in determining the question we are dealing with. 29. As noticed hereinabove, the only tests, which were conducted by the Experts, were to find out tetrahydrocannabinol or cystolithic hair. They found tetrahydrocannabinol but did not indicate in their reports the percentage thereof. While in the witness- box also, the Experts did not say what was the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the samples. Specific category of a cannabis product, like Charas, ganja, or mixture, as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, or anything else, like bhang etc., can also be determined, with reference to the percentage of in the stuff. As noticed hereinabove, percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol varies from one product to other product of cannabis. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 30. According to Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, in the case of bhang it is 15 per cent, in the case of ganja it is about 25 per cent and in the case of Charas it is between 25 and 40 per cent. When the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample stuff is not indicated in the report nor had any test been conducted to ascertain whether the stuff was Charas, that is to say resin, or some other preparation of cannabis, it cannot be said that the stuff was in fact Charas. As regards cystolithic hair, these being the fibre of cannabis plant, are bound to be present in all the products of cannabis. It is quite likely that the samples were only of bhang, i.e. the dried leaves of cannabis plant, which is also supposed to contain 15 per cent concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol. Possession of only the leaves or the seeds of cannabis plant is no offense, because it is only the Charas, ganja or mixture, as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, which is an offense, under Section 20 of the Act. Leaves and seeds of cannabis plant are not included either in the definition of Charas or ganja and are rather specifically excluded from the definition of ganja, unless accompany the flowering and fruiting tops of the plant. 31. In view of the abovestated position, we hold that Experts’ reports in none of these six cases prove that the stuff recovered from the appellants/accused was Charas. The possibility of the stuff recovered from them being only bhang, i.e. the dried leaves of cannabis plant, possession of which is no offense, cannot be ruled out.” 10. In view of prosecution witnesses PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7, only one bag was being carried by the accused, when apprehended and search was made. However, Ex. P-F, which was witnessed by Sunder Singh, Bijender and MHC Pushp Dev, indicated that one bag of rexine, in which a diary, used cloths were kept was also recovered. Such recovery of another bag has not been proved by the prosecution. 11. In view of the testimony of PW-7 when two samples of 25 grams each were separated for chemical analysis and each sample was sealed with three seals of ‘X’ and remaining charas was again put in aforesaid polythene packets and put into the same - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 bag, which was sealed in cloth parcel with 9 seals of ‘X’ then under what circumstances another bag of rexine was found at the time of search. 12. On analysis of prosecution witnesses and the material on record, we also notice that exhibit P-J indicates examination report of CFSL as below: “Various laboratory tests were carried out with the exhibits-1 under reference for identification. Chemical tests and chromatographic analysis indicated the cannabinols including tetrahydrocannabinol. Microscopy indicated the presence of characteristic cystolithic hair. The results thus obtained have been analysed as given below: Exhibit-1 is a sample of charas.” 13. On scrutiny of statement of prosecution witnesses and material on record, we find that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubts. 14. In the light of verdict given by this Court in Panne Lal v. State of H.P., 2010(2) Crimes 558 (H.P.), the possession of such recovered goods cannot be said to be contraband goods and possession of which is not an offense. Therefore, chemical report given in present case is doubtful. Relying upon the decision of Panne Lal v. State of H.P, (supra), the benefit of doubt is given to the accused/appellant. 15. In our considered view the appellant/convict shall liable to be set free to his liberty forthwith, unless required in any other process of law.” 19. Similarly, in Sunil and other’s case supra, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held as under:- “4. “Charas” is one of the three forms of cannabis (hemp), as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, which reads as follows: “(a) charas, that is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish.” 5. According to the definition of “Charas”, - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 as given in Section 2(iii)(a) of the Act, the stuff to fall in the category of Charas, should be resin of cannabis plant only or the concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish. In other words, the definition does not include other parts, like flowering and fruiting tops, leaves or stem, of cannabis plant. 6. Flowering and fruiting tops of cannabis plant have been defined to mean ganja, per Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act and when seeds and leaves of the plant accompany such flowering or fruiting tops, they also form part of ganja. 7. When Charas, i.e. resin and/or ganja, i.e. flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, are mixed, with or without any neutral material, they fall in the category of Mixture of cannabis (hemp), as defined in Section 2(iii)(c) of the Act. 8. Being in possession of cannabis (hemp) is an offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Act. Punishment varies according to the quantity possessed. Quantities are defined as small and commercial in Sections 2(viia) and 2 (xxiiia), respectively. Small and commercial quantities of Charas, ganja and mixture are different, per Table notified by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, vide notification No. S.O. 527(E), dated 16th July, 1996, under clauses vii(a) and xxiii(a) of Section 2 of the Act. For Charas and hashish, which are referred to as extracts and tinctures of cannabis plant in entry No.23, small quantity is less than 100 grams and commercial quantity is above 1 kg. In respect of ganja, small quantity is less than 1000 grams and commercial quantity is more than 20 kgs, per entry 55. 9. In all the six cases stuff, which, according to the prosecution, was Charas, had been seized by Police Officers, on search of the person or baggage or buildings or conveyance of the appellants/accused. Samples were separated from the recovered stuff and sent to the Chemical Examiners. In the following four cases, samples were sent to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Chandigarh: 1. Sunil versus State (Cr.ANo.267/2007) 2. Surinder Singh versus State (Cr.ANo.311/2007) 3. Panne Lal versus State(Cr.ANo.45/2008) 4. State versus Jeet Ram (Cr.ANo.363/2008) - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 10. In all the aforesaid cases, reports given by the abovesaid Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory are similar, rather verbatim the same. They read as follows: RESULTS OF THE EXAMINATION Various laboratory tests were carried out with the exhibit-1 under reference for identification. Chemical tests and chromatographic analysis indicated the cannabinols including tetrahydrocannabinol. Microscopy indicated the presence of characteristic cystolithic hair. The results thus obtained have been analysed as given below: Exhibit-1 is a sample of charas. Shri R.S. Verma, who signed these reports, as Director of the said Forensic Science Laboratory, was examined as a witness, in two cases. In one case, i.e. Panne Lal versus State (Cr.A No.45/2008), he was examined as a witness of the prosecution and in another, i.e. State versus Jeet Ram (Cr.A No.363/2008), he was examined as a witness of the defence. 11. In other two cases, i.e.Cr.A No.314 of 2008, Raj Kumar versus State, and Cr.A No.500 of 2008, Karuna Shankar Puri versus State, samples were sent to Chemical Examiner, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga (H.P.), and his reports read as follows: RajKumar’s case: “Various scientific tests such as physical, identification, chemical and chromatographic tests were carried out in the Laboratory with the exhibit P/1 & P/2 under reference. The tests performed above indicated cannabinols including the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol in both the samples. The microscopic examination indicated the presence of cystolithic hair in both the samples. Charas is a Resinous mass and resin is an ingredient of Charas which on testing was found present. The quantity of Resin in cannabis Plant/Charas sample varies from one area to the other area. The result thus obtained is given below. For both the samples. The exhibits P/1 & P/2 are the samples of CHARAS.” Karuna Shankar Puri’s case: “Various scientific tests such identification, chemical and chromatographic were carried out in the - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 Laboratory with the exhibit P/1 reference. The tests performed above indicated cannabinols including the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample. The microscopic examination indicated the presence of cystolithic hair in the sample. The result thus obtained is given below. The exhibit marked as P/1 is a sample of CHARAS.” 12. Shri A.K. Wasuja, Chemical Examiner, by whom the aforesaid two reports are signed, was summoned as a Court witness by one of us (Surjit Singh, J), while sitting singly and his statement was recorded to seek clarification as to how he came to the conclusion that the examined stuff was Charas. 13. From the reports, as reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that the stuff was opined to be Charas, on account of presence of cannabinol, including tetrahydrocannabinol and cystolithic hair. Report Ex. PW-9/D, in Cr.A No.314 of 2008, titled as Raj Kumar versus State, given by Chemical Examiner Shri A.K. Wasuja, who was examined as a Court witness by a Single Judge Bench of this Court, states that Charas is resinous mass and resin is an ingredient of Charas, which on testing was found present. His report suggests that entire sample mass that was analyzed by him was not resin but some quantity of it was found present in the mass. Report also suggests that term “Charas”, used by its author, namely Court witness Shri A.K. Wasuja, is different from the definition of “Charas”, as given in Section 2(iii)(a) of the Act, as reproduced hereinabove, because as per definition resin is not an ingredient of Charas. But, as per definition in Section 2(iii)(a) of the Act, “Charas” means whole resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, of cannabis plant. 14. Common question, which has been raised in all the appeals, is whether by conducting certain tests only to notice the presence of cannabinols, including tetrahydrocannabinols, and the characteristic cystolithic hair of cannabis plant, which are also present in ganja and mixture, as defined in Sections 2(iii)(b)&(c), besides bhang, stem and seeds of cannabis plant, the analysts could have been in a position to conclude that the sample was Charas. 15. Dr. R.S. Verma, who was examined as PW-11,by the trial Court, in the case giving rise to appeal titled Panne Lal versus State (Cr.A No.45/2008), admitted that Charas is separated resin - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 from cannabis plant. He stated that he tested the resin to identify it with Charas and that resin containing tetrahydrocannabinol is Charas and that other resins, like that of pine tree, pear, peach, do not contain tetrahydrocannabinol. His statement that he tested the resin to identify Charas, by conducting a test to find whether it contained tetrahydrocannabinol, itself suggests that he proceeded to analyse the stuff, assuming the same to be resin, without conducting any specific test to ascertain whether it was resin or something other than resin. 16. While appearing as DW-1 before the trial Court, in another case, i.e. State versus Jeet Ram (Cr.A No.363/ 2008), he (Dr. R.S. Verma) stated that it is tetrahydrocannabinol which is the active agent in the resin and that it is the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol, which shows that the sample stuff is a cannabis product. His saying that presence of tetrahydrocannabinol shows that the stuff is cannabis product clearly suggests that the test conducted by him was to find out if the stuff was a product of cannabis and not the specific product, defined as Charas in Section2(iii)(a) of the Act. Cannabis products are many. Three of them are defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act. There may be others also, which are not included in the definition of cannabis (hemp), under Section 2(iii) of the Act. And one such is bhang, i.e. the leaves of the plant,possession of which is not an offence. We may observe that finely crushed green leaves of cannabis pressed into mass would also give a look similar to that of Charas. He stated that there was resin present in the sample, but he did not mention its percentage in his report, as the same was not required to be mentioned. His statement that resin was present in the sample indicates that the entire stuff was not resin. Further, his statement that the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol indicates that the stuff is cannabis product, shows that tetrahydrocannabinol is supposed to be present not only in resin/Charas but also in other forms of cannabis (hemp), i.e. ganja and mixture, as defined in Sections 2(iii)(b) and 2(iii)(c) of the Act, respectively. As a matter of fact, tetrahydrocannabinol is present not only in the three forms of cannabis(hemp), defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, but also in its leaves, stem and even the seeds, as we would be indicating in the later part of this judgment and, therefore, the mere presence of - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 tetrahydrocannabinol or cystolithic hair, which is the fabric of the cannabis plant, do not mean that the analyzed stuff is Charas, which means separated resin, per Section2(iii)(a) of the Act, and not any other product of cannabis. 17. In the remaining two cases, reports are given by Shri A.K. Wasuja, Chemical Examiner of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga (H.P.), who was examined as a Court witness by one of us (Surjit Singh,J)sitting in single.In one of his reports, Ex. PX, in case titled Karuna Shankar Puri versus State (Cr.A No.500/2008), he has stated that Charas is a resinous mass and resin is an ingredient of Charas, which on testing was found present. This mention in the result of analysis suggests that the witness is not even aware of the definition of Charas. Resin is not an ingredient of Charas but it is the separated resin alone which is Charas, per definition given in Section 2(iii)(a) of the Act. 18. Chemical Examiner, Shri A.K. Wasuja, when examined as a Court witness, by this Court, in Criminal Appeal No.500 of 2008, titled as Karuna Shankar Puri versus State, stated that he did not agree with the definition of “Charas”, as given in Section 2(iii)(a) of the Act and that as a matter of fact “Charas” was composition of about 400 substances. In support of this claim, he relied upon Ex. C-1, comprising four sheets of some literature downloaded by him from the Internet. Ex. C-1 does not pertain to Charas but Marijuana or Marihuana, which means cannabis. When his attention was drawn to this fact, he admitted that Ex. C-1 pertained to Marijuana. 19. “Marijuana”, as per Webster’s Third New InternationalDictionary,Volume11,meansthedriedleave s and flowering tops of the pistillate hemp plants that are the source of the drug cannabin and are sometimes smoked in cigarettes with consequent effect of the drug on the higher nerve centers to produce peculiar psychic disturbances and other words for “Marijuana”, as per the aforesaid Dictionary are bhang, ganja and hashish. That means “Marijuana” includes not only Charas, ganja and mixture, as defined in clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Section 2(iii) of the Act, respectively, but also dried leaves and other parts of cannabis plant. 20. From a reading of the statements of Dr. R.S. Verma, Director of Central Forensic Science - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 Laboratory, Chandigarh, examined as PW-11 in the appeal titled Panne Lal versus State and as DW-1 in appeal titled State versus Jeet Ram by the trial Courts; and Shri A.K. Wasuja, Chemical Examiner, examined as CW-1 by a Single Judge Bench of this Court in appeal titled as Karuna Shankar Puri versus State, it appears that both the Experts are unaware of the term “Charas”, as defined and made an offence under the Act and that the tests were conducted by them to find if the stuff contained tetrahydrocannabinol and cystolithic hair. They did not conduct any test to ascertain if the stuff was resin. On the contrary, their statements and reports, particularly report Ex. PW-9/D given in case titled Raj Kumar versus State, show that the samples, which were examined were not resin/Charas in entirety but contained some unspecified and perhaps uncertained quantity of Charas/ resin. 21. We have noticed hereinabove that tetrahydrocannabinols are found not only in the Charas, which means separated resin of cannabis plant but also in ganja, as defined in Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act and even in the leaves, seeds and stems of cannabis plant. We have observed so, on the basis of authoritative literature. 22. In The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, tetrahydrocannabinol or THC is defined as active constituent of cannabis (Marijuana/Marihuana) isolated from Indian hemp plant (cannabis stiva). 23. In Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Sixth Edition, it is mentioned at Page-10.54, in answer to Question No.10.21 that tetrahydrocannabinol-THC is active principal and it is present in bhang to the extent of 15 per cent, in ganja to the extent of 25 per cent and in Charas to the extent of 25- 40 per cent. 24. In Principles and Practice of Forensic Medicine, First Edition, by Dr. Umadethan, it is mentioned at Page - 486 that principal psycho active substance in cannabis (Marijuana, Marihuana) is delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol and besides this there are cannabinol, cannabidiol, cannabinoleic acid and 400 other cannabinoids. 25. Cannabis, according to Lyon’s Medical Jurisprudence in India, Tenth Edition (Page-747), includes bhang, which means dried leaves, ganja, flowering tops, Charas, the resin which exudes from - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 the leaves and branches, which is often adulterated and Majun, a sweetmeat prepared with bhang. 26. As a matter of fact, tetrahydrocannabinol is present in the resin of cannabis. Resin is present in the leaves, flowering and fruiting tops, stem and seeds of the plant. Therefore, tetrahydrocannabinol will be found even in the leaves, stem, seeds and the flowering and fruiting tops of cannabis plant. But resin is Charas, when it is separated from the plant or its aforesaid parts. Presence of resin inthe aforesaid parts does not make such parts Charas nor is the resin in such parts Charas, unless separated, in view of the definition in Section 2(iii)(a) of the Act. 27. Learned Advocate General, who appeared for the State, submitted that a similar question was raised before a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court, in Dhanpalsingh Barunsingh Thakur and others versus State of Guajrat, 1995 Cri. L.J. 3751, and the learned Judges, relying upon the report of the Chemical Examiner, held that the entire sample stuff was Charas. A reading of the judgment shows that the Expert, who appeared as PW-1 based his opinion not only on his own tests but also the report of Botanical Expert. The substance was found to contain cannabis species, as it gave positive result, when subjected to para-aminon phenol test and thin layer chromatography test. Contention raised in that case was that the Expert had not given the opinion that the substance was resin obtained from cannabis plant or a concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish. No doubt, the Expert in that case did not specifically say that the sample stuff was resin of cannabis plant but he conducted two tests, i.e. para-aminon phenol test and thin layer chromatography test and came to the conclusion that the sample was Charas, which meant resin. 28. In the present case, as noticed hereinabove, it is made out from the reports, particularly report Ex. PW-9/D as also the testimony of the two Experts, namely Dr. R.S. Verma and Shri A.K. Wasuja, that the entire stuff was not resin and that the tests, which they conducted, were meant to ascertain whether the stuff was cannabis(Marijuana)and not for Charas. Therefore, the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, referred to above, does not help in determining the question we are dealing with. 29. As noticed hereinabove, the only tests, - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 which were conducted by the Experts, were to find out tetrahydrocannabinol or cystolithic hair. They found tetrahydrocannabinol but did not indicate in their reports the percentage thereof. While in the witness- box also, the Experts did not say what was the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the samples. Specific category of a cannabis product, like Charas, ganja, or mixture, as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, or anything else, like bhang etc., can also be determined, with reference to the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the stuff. As noticed hereinabove, percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol varies from one product to other product of cannabis. 30. According to Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, in the case of bhang it is 15 per cent, in the case of ganja it is about 25 percent and in the case of Charas it is between 25 and 40 per cent. When the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample stuff is not indicated in the report nor had any test been conducted to ascertain whether the stuff was Charas, that is to say resin, or some other preparation of cannabis, it cannot be said that the stuff was in fact Charas. As regards cystolithic hair, these being the fibre of cannabis plant, are bound to be present in all the products of cannabis. It is quite likely that the samples were only of bhang, i.e. the dried leaves of cannabis plant, which is also supposed to contain 15 per cent concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol. Possession of only the leaves or the seeds of cannabis plant is no offence, because it is only the Charas, ganja or mixture, as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, which is an offence, under Section 20 of the Act. Leaves and seeds of cannabis plant are not included either in the definition of Charas or ganja and are rather specifically excluded from the definition of ganja, unless accompany the flowering and fruiting tops of the plant. 31. In view of the above stated position, we hold that Experts’ reports in none of these six cases prove that the stuff recovered from the appellants/accused was Charas. The possibility of the stuff recovered from them being only bhang, i.e. the dried leaves of cannabis plant, possession of which is no offence, cannot be ruled out. 32. Now, we proceed to take up the individual cases. 33. In Panne Lal versus State (Cr.A - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 No.45/2008), Karuna Shankar Puri versus State (Cr.A No.500/2008) and Sunil versus State (Cr.A No.267/2007), no other point had been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants. Criminal Appeal titled State versus Jeet Ram (Cr.A No.363/2008), filed by the State against the order of acquittal, does not survive, in view of our aforesaid finding that the Chemical Report does not prove that the stuff was Charas. 34. In appeal titled Surinder Singh versus State (Cr.A No.311 of 2007), it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that there are several contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses, which belie the prosecution story. It was also argued that there is no evidence, indicating that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle or had anything to do with the vehicle from which stuff was recovered. Further, it was contended that link evidence was missing and the presence of some of the witnesses on the spot was highly doubtful. 35. For appreciation of the above submissions, facts of the case need to be noticed. On 16th September, 2006, around 10.30 a.m., when a Police Party, headed by Inspector Trilochan Dutt (PW- 11), of which Constable Subhash Kumar (PW-1), Constable Kishori Lal (PW-2), Constable Rajinder Kumar (PW-3), HC Yoginder Kumar(PW-10) and some more police officials were the other members, was present in a forest on Dhamandri-Tayali road, a Maruti Van bearing registration No.HP-02-2885 appeared from Tayali side. It was being driven by appellant Surinder Singh. Van was got stopped and checked. A bag containing a polythene bag, in which there was Charas, was recovered from the front side of the Van near the seat adjacent to driver’s seat. On being weighed, the stuff was found to be 2.650 kgs. Two samples, each weighing 30 grams, were separated. One sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who vide report Ex. PX gave the opinion that it was Charas. 36. Learned counsel representing the appellant pointed out contradictions in the statements of the above named witnesses, who formed the Police Party, with regard to the number of the police officials, the condition of the number plate of the Van, the exact place in the Van from where bag containing Charas was recovered, which particular member of the Police Party searched the bag, time when the Police Party - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 reached the spot, who saw the bag containing Charas first, how many other vehicles were checked on way to the site where the Van of the appellant was checked, when did the Police Party leave the Police Station, what were the units of the weights that had been used to weigh the stuff and the manner of weighing the stuff. 37. We have gone through the testimony of PW-1 Constable Subhash Kumar, PW-2 Constable Kishori Lal, PW-3 Constable Rajinder Kumar, PW-10 HC Yoginder Kumar and PW-11 Inspector Trilochan Dutt. The alleged contradictions are very minor and in no way affect the credibility of the above named witnesses, with regard to the search and seizure of the stuff from the Van. All the witnesses have stated, with one voice, that they were members of the Police Party and that the vehicle was stopped at the site of its search and a bag was recovered from the front portion of the Van near the front seat adjacent to the driver’s seat. 38. Next contention is that the vehicle is not connected with the appellant, as no documents of the vehicle were seized and produced in the Court. Prosecution was not supposed to have proved that the appellant is the owner of the vehicle or he has anything to do with the vehicle. He was driving the vehicle, in question. He was all alone in the vehicle, when it was got stopped and checked and stuff was recovered. Therefore, the presumption is that the stuff belonged to him. What the prosecution was required to prove was that the stuff was in his possession and not that the vehicle by which he was carrying belonged to him or how he happened to be in control of that vehicle. 39. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant is that link evidence adduced, in the form of testimony of PW-6 MHC Man Dev and PW-7 Constable Naresh Kumar, was discrepant. 40. It was submitted that sample was initially sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory at Kandaghat, but the In-charge of that Laboratory returned the same, due to over-work and then it was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Chandigarh two days later. However, there was no entry in the Malkhana Register, regarding the return of sample by the In-charge of State Laboratory. PW-6 MHC Man Dev admitted that no entry about the return of the sample by the State Laboratory had been made - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 in the Register of Malkhana, but at the same time he stated that an entry had been made in the Rojnamcha, which he was in possession of when in the witness-box. Therefore, mere absence of entry in the Malkhana Register about the return of the sample and its re-depositing in the Malkhana, in our considered view, makes no difference, especially when in the Rojnamcha there is an entry about the return of the sample by the State Laboratory. 41. Learned counsel further submitted that as per cross-examination of PW-6 MHC Man Dev, parcels containing case property and samples of a number of cases bore seal ‘T’, which fact indicated that possibility of tampering with the case property or the sample could not be ruled out. Of course, the witness, in his cross- examination, did state that as per entry in the Malkhana Register, case property of various cases bore seal ‘T’, but he did not say that the impression was the same in all the cases. There are many Investigating Officers in a Police Station and all of them get their own seals prepared and often the seals produce impressions of letters of English alphabet. However, the size, shape and formation of the letters vary, because such seals are usually prepared manually and, therefore, impressions of one seal are always different from the impressions of other seals, even if they are of the same letter. 42. In appeal titled Raj Kumar versus State (Cr.A No.314/2008), prosecution case is that on 18th October, 2007, around 2.15 p.m., when PW-13 SI Kushal Chand of Police Station, Una, along with ASI Karan Pal Singh, Constable Chanan Singh, Constable Vijay Kumar and lady Constable Raj Rani, was present at Rotary Chowk, Una, he received secret information that the appellant, who ran a Drycleaner’s shop, near the old hospital building, dealt in sale and purchase of Charas and had kept Charas in his shop for the purpose. He reduced that information into writing (Ex. PW-12/A) and sent the writing to Superintendent of Police, Una, through Constable Vijay Kumar. He also drew a report for registration of the case, which is Ex. PW-7/B and sent it to the Police Station, through Constable Chanan Singh. He associated with him two independent witnesses, namely Ashwani Kumar (PW-1) and one Naresh Kumar, and went to the shop of the appellant. Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW-6 Diwakar Sharma, on being directed by Superintendent of Police, Una, also - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 reached the shop of the appellant. Appellant was informed that it was intended to search his person and he had a right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer of one of the notified departments or a Magistrate and in case he so desired search of his person could be arranged in the presence of a Magistrate or such a Gazetted Officer. Appellant opted for being searched by PW-13 SI Kushal Chand, in the presence of PW-6 Diwakar Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had also reached the spot by that time. On search, 50 grams Charas was recovered from the right side pocket of the pants, which the appellant was wearing. The Charas was wrapped in a white plastic envelope. It was weighed. Two samples, weighing 10 grams each, were separated. Samples and the bulk Charas were made into three separate parcels and the parcels were sealed with a seal that produced the impression of letter ‘A’ of English alphabet. Specimen impressions of the seal were taken on a separate piece of cloth. Memo of search and seizure was prepared, NCB forms were filed in triplicate, site plan was prepared and the appellant was arrested. 43. Appellant, while in police custody, was interrogated. He told that he had kept Charas in the Puja room of his house in village Kotla, in a trunk, and could get the same recovered. Deputy Superintendent of Police, who by that time had left for his Office, was informed, telephonically.PW-13 SI Kushal Chand then proceeded to the house of the appellant alongwith Raj Kumar and Pritpal Singh. By the time they reached the house of the appellant, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW-6 Diwakar Sharma, also reached. Appellant led PW-13 SI Kushal Chand, PW-6 Diwakar Sharma and the independent witnesses to his Puja room and get recovered from a trunka plastic bag containing Charas, which weighed 1.400 kgs. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams were separated. The samples and the bulk Charas were made into three separate parcels and were sealed with a seal that produced the impression of letter ‘K’ of English alphabet. Search and seizure memo was prepared. Case property was deposited with the Moharrar Head Constable. One sample taken from the Charas recovered in the course of personal search of the appellant and one sample of the Charas recovered from the house of the appellant were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who gave the opinion that the - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 samples were of Charas. 44. During the course of trial, independent witnesses examined by the prosecution, namely PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, PW-2 Rajesh Kumar, PW-3 Des Raj and PW-4 Santosh Rani, who allegedly witnessed the personal search and the house search of the appellant, turned hostile. They were cross-examined by the prosecution with the leave of the Court. They did not say anything favourable to the prosecution, even in their cross-examination. Raj Kumar and Pritpal Singh, the alleged witnesses of disclosure statement, were not examined. 45. Other two witnesses examined by the prosecution were PW-13 SI Kushal Chand and PW- 6Diwakar Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police. 46. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that testimony of PW-13 SI Kushal Chand and PW-6 Diwakar Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, does not inspire confidence and that even though there are no apparent contradictions in their testimony, yet some inconsistencies and improbabilities in their testimony make the prosecution case highly doubtful. 47. PW-13 SI Kushal Chand testified that he had received information that the appellant indulged in sale and purchase of Charas and that in case his shop was searched,without loss of any time, Charas could be found.In the report, under Section 42(2) of the Act, Ex. PW-12/A, which he sent to the Superintendent of Police, as also report Ex. PW-7/B, which he sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case, he specifically mentioned that the information was that in case search was conducted Charas could be recovered from the shop of the appellant. 48. However, neither PW-13 SI Kushal Chand nor PW-6 Diwakar Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, uttered a word about the search of the shop of the appellant, meaning thereby that the shop was not searched. Now, when the information was that the Charas had been kept in the shop, PW-13 SI Kushal Chand was supposed to have conducted search of the shop first. Not only that in his testimony as PW-13, SI Kushal Chand did not say that the shop was searched, even in the Special Report Ex. PW- 12/A, which he sent to the Superintendent of Police after conducting search, he did not mention that search of the shop was also carried out, meaning - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 thereby that shop was not searched. 49. The fact that the information, which PW-13 SI Kushal Chand claimed to have received, was that the Charas was kept in the shop but his not searching the shop and instead searching the person of the appellant, is suggestive of some hanky-panky, especially when only 50 grams Charas, wrapped in a plastic envelope, is alleged to have been recovered during personal search. Such a small quantity can easily be planted and even manipulated to be demonstrated to have been recovered from personal search, by sleight of hand. 50. Evidence with respect to the alleged disclosure statement made by the appellant that he had kept Charas in his house and the recovery of Charas, pursuant to that statement, also does not inspire confidence.PW-13 SI Kushal Chand, in his cross-examination, stated that after conducting the personal search of the appellant he, the appellant and the witnesses straightway went to the house of the appellant and that the disclosure statement was made by the appellant at his shop. It was suggested to him that in the statement of Pritpal Singh as also in the statement of Rajesh Kumar, which he recorded, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was written that the disclosure statement about the Charas being in the Puja room had been made at the Police Station. He admitted the suggestions to be correct, but did not reconcile his statement in the Court that the disclosure statement had been made by the appellant at the shop, with the statements of the above named two witnesses, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which it is recorded by him that the disclosure statement was made at the Police Station. This fact by itself suggests that the story about the appellant having made disclosurstatement leading to the discovery of Charas from Puja room of his house is not true. 51. As a result of our aforesaid finding on the common question involved in all the six appeals, we allow the five appeals filed by the convicts- appellants, i.e. Sunil versus State (Cr. A No.267/2007), Surinder Singh versus State (Cr. A No.311/2007), Panne Lal versus State (Cr.A No.45/2008), Raj Kumar versus State (Cr.A No.314/2008) and Karuna Shankar Puri versus State (Cr.A No.500/2008). Appeal filed by appellant Raj Kumar, i.e. Cr.A No.314 of 2008, Raj Kumar versus - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 State, is allowed also for the additional reasons stated hereinabove, while dealing with the same individually. Consequently, judgments of the trial Courts, convicting and sentencing the above named appellants, are set aside and they are acquitted. They being in jail, serving the sentence awarded by the trial Courts, are ordered to be released forthwith, in case their detention is not required in any other case. 52. Appeal filed by the State, i.e. Cr.A No.363 of 2008, State versus Jeet Ram, is dismissed, in view of the finding on common question involved in all the six appeals. All the six appeals stand disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.” 20. In Dayaram Singh’s case supra, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held as under:- “3. As per the allegations in the present case, on 19.3.2011 the police Amarpatan made a Panchanama that from the pump house of the petitioners, the alleged 2.500 kgs of Ganja was recovered by the Excise Department. The petitioners have assailed the lodging of FIR in question and subsequent proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof on legal parameters. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be relevant to see the definitions as enumerated in Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act, 1985”). For ready reference, Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act, 1985 is hereby reproduced as under:— “(iii) cannabis (hemp) means- (a) charas, that is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish; (b) ganja, that is, the flowering of fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops) by whatever name they may be known or designated; and (c) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom.” - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 4. Cannabis plant and cannabis (hemp) are two distinct contrabands under the NDPS Act, 1985. Cannabis plant means any plant of the genus cannabis. Charas is separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant. It also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish. Ganja is flowering of fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops). 5. The contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioners was subjected to chemical analysis. As per the chemical analysis report dated 31.3.2011, Ex.A-1 and A-2 were found containing greenish and whitish coloured leaves, flowers and vegetable item. The chemical microscope and thin layer chromatography examination found the contraband to be Ganja. The FSL report did not show the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol in any manner. The sample as a whole was classified as Ganja without any classification based on percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol. In case of Bhang, tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample stuff would be 15%. In case of Ganja, it would be 25% and in case of Charas, it would be between 25-40%. The presence of tetrahydrocannabinol on percentage pattern in the sample stuff would show whether it is actually Bhang, Ganja or Charas. In the absence of such percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol given in the FSL report, no other evidence would make the recovered contraband to be a Bhang, Ganja or Charas. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nagendra Shah v. State of HP, (2010) 4 RCR (Cri) 194. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, even in the absence of any such pleadings submitted that the issue is purely a legal issue and can be racked up during the course of arguments and the arguments are duly supported by the precedents in Nagender Shah's case (supra) and Anav Jain v. State of Haryana, CRM-M No. 51512 of 2022 decided on 1.12.2022, wherein the Court after considering the different precedents on the subject held the aforesaid proposition. As per the Working Procedure Manual of conducting the test, the Directorate of forensic Science Services, Ministry of Home Affairs, - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 Government of India has prescribed working procedure in terms of 5.7.2.5 i.e. test for differentiation between Bhang, Ganja and Charas. 7. The FSL report is totally silent with regard to adoption of working procedure while determining the contraband to be Ganja only. In the absence of showing presence of Tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabinol and Cannabidiol being part of manufacturing process, no offence under the NDPS Act, 1985 is made out. Para No. 29 and 30 of judgment of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Roshal Lal, 2010 SCC OnLine HP 2554 are reproduced as under:— “29. As noticed hereinabove, the only tests, which were conducted by the Experts, were to find out tetrahydrocannabinol or cystolithic hair. They found tetrahydrocannabinol but did not indicate in their reports the percentage thereof. While in the witness- box also, the Experts did not say what was the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the samples. Specific category of a cannabis product, like Charas, ganja, or mixture, as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, or anything else, like bhang, etc., can also be determined, with reference to the percentage of in the stuff. As noticed hereinabove, percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol varies from one product to other product of cannabis. 30. According to Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, in the case of bhang it is 15 per cent, in the case of ganja it is about 25 per cent and in the case of Charas it is between 25 and 40 per cent. When the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample stuff is not indicated in the report nor had any test been conducted to ascertain whether the stuff was Charas, that is to say resin, or some other preparation of cannabis, it cannot be said that the stuff was in fact Charas. As regards eystolithic hair, these being the fibre of cannabis plant, are bound to be present in all the products of cannabis. It is quite likely that the samples were only of bhang, i.e. the dried leaves of cannabis plant, which is also supposed to contain 15 per cent concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol. Possession of only the leaves or the seeds of cannabis plant is no offense, because it is only the Charas, ganja or mixture, as defined in Section 2(iii) of - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 the Act, which is an offense, under Section 20 of the Act. Leaves and seeds of cannabis plant are not included either in the definition of Charas or ganja and are rather specifically excluded from the definition of ganja, unless accompany the flowering and fruiting tops of the plant.” 8. The FSL report is absolutely silent about the percentage of Tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabinol and Cannabidiol, and therefore the prosecution has miserably failed to show the commission of any offence. Reference can also be made to Arjun Singh v. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 RCR (Cri) 506. Evidently the Bhang does not fall under the definition of cannabis hemp as defined under Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 9. The alleged contraband recovered from the petitioners finds place at Sl. No. 55 of the table, wherein 1000 gms. would fall under small quantity and commercial quantity starts from 20 kg onwards. After filing of the charge sheet/173 of Cr. P.C., the ingredients of the FSL report cannot be improved. The FSL report is discrepant with regard to presence of tetrahydrocannabinol in any manner. The sample stuff can only be categorized as Ganja, if percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol is found to be 25%. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nagendra Shah's case (supra) and other precedents on the subject, I am of the view that further prosecution in the aforesaid criminal case would result in futility, as the sample stuff cannot be categorized as Ganja on the basis of chemical analysis. The sample stuff has been categorized as Ganja solely on the basis of FSL report, which is discrepant in terms of percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol, rather cannabinol as a component in the sample stuff has not been mentioned in the FSL report. The FSL report has only indicated that some greenish, whitish coloured leaves and flowers were found in the sample stuff and on the basis of some chemical analysis and thin layer chromatography, sample stuff was categorized to be Ganja. In the aforesaid test, tetrahydrocannabinol was not found as a component contributing any required - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 percentage in order to bring the sample stuff within the four corner of Ganja. 11. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to accept this petition, as no bonafide purpose would be served in carrying out with the case, as the recovered article/item cannot be categorized to be Ganja by any stretch of imagination. The complicity of the petitioners on the basis of recovery of small quantity of Ganja cannot result in any conviction, as no case is made out to bring the alleged contraband within the definition of Ganja. 12. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The FIR/Crime No. 265/2011 and subsequent proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed. Normal consequences to follow.” 21. As stated supra, the undisputed material on record will clearly indicate that the I.O. was not satisfied with the initial / preliminary report dated 20.09.2022 submitted by the CC Laboratory erroneously / wrongly confirming that the samples contained ‘ganja’ which is a ‘genus of cannabis’ and it was under these circumstances, that the I.O. sought for clarification from the CC Laboratory regarding quantity, existence, percentage of THC in the samples so as to ascertain and confirm that the same contained ‘ganja’ and its effect on the human body for the specific purpose of filing a charge sheet. In response to the same, the CC Laboratory submitted a reply categorically stating that the queries put forth by the I.O. could not be answered for lack / want of necessary / requisite equipment which was not available with the CC Laboratory. Under these circumstances, in the face of a completely inconclusive / flawed / indefinite / indecisive and unconfirmed / indeterminate report and reply submitted - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 by the CC Laboratory, the I.O. could not have submitted a charge sheet for the alleged offences against the petitioner in the absence of legal or acceptable material in this regard and the trial court has proceeded to pass the impugned order erroneously rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioner, thereby warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 22. It is needless to state that liberty would have to be reserved in favour of the respondents to conduct further investigation, if they are so advised and proceed further in accordance with law. 23. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby partly allowed. (ii) The impugned charge sheet at Annexure-C filed by the 1st respondent in Spl.C.No.249/2023 pending on the file of Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, are hereby quashed. (iii) The impugned cognizance dated 07.02.2023 and issue of process dated 09.02.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.249/2023 pending on the file of Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, at Annexure-D are hereby set aside. (iv) The impugned order at Annexure-K dated 26.03.2024 passed in Spl.C.No.249/2023 by the trial court is hereby set aside. - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 (v) The impugned proceedings in Spl.C.No.249/2023 pending on the file of Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, are hereby quashed. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to conduct further investigation and proceed further in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in this order.” 9. In the instant case, the Examination Report dated 31.07.2024 submitted by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, is as under:- Govt. of India Ministry of Home Affairs Directorate of Forensic Science Services CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY Ramanthapur, Hyderbad – 500 013 (Ph. Nos.040-27038741/8981/0962(Office) : 27038429/7851 (Director) Fax Nos.91-40-27039281/1171 E-mail: cfslhyd@gmail.com No. CFSL (H) / 892-897/NAR/170-175/2024 Dated:01.07.2024 To, The Superintendent, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bangalore Zonal Unit, H.No.7/1-2, Priyanka Villa, Ramanna Garden, Kattigenahalli, Baglur Main Road, Bangalore – 560 063. Sub: Acknowledgment of cases / exhibits – Reg. ***** Sir, Kindly refer to your letter NCB F.No. 48/1/13/2024/NCB/ BZU/927 dated 30.06.2024, regarding examination of case Exhibit in - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 Case/Crime No.F.No.48/1/13/2024/BZU dated 28.05.2024, PS: NCB, Bangalore U/s: 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(C), 27, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 2. The receipt of the exhibits in Eighteen (18) sealed light brown colour paper envelopes sent through Shri. M. Naga Bhushanam, Sepoy, PIC No.NCB/0267 of NCB, BZU is hereby acknowledged for qualification analysis only. Yours faithfully, Sd/- HOD (Narcotics Div.) P.SUDHAKAR SCIENTIST ‘B’” “Govt. of India Ministry of Home Affairs Directorate of Forensic Science Services CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY Ramanthapur, Hyderbad – 500 013 (Ph. Nos.040-27038429 (Director) Fax Nos.91-40-27039281/1171 E-mail: cfslhyd@gmail.com EXAMINATION REPORT 1. Report No. CFSL (H)/892-897/NAR/ 170-175/2024 Dt. 31.07.2024 2. No. of Pages of Report Two(02) 3. Ref.No.: NCB F.No.48/1/13/2024/ NCB/BZU/927 Dt. 30.06.2024 From: The Superintenden , NCB, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bangalore-63 4. Case No.: F.No. 48/1/13/2024/BZU Dt. 28.05.2024 U/s: 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c), 27, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. P.S. NCB, Bangalore. 5. Mode of Receipt: Through Shri. M. Naga Bhushanam, Sepoy, PIC No.NCB/0267 6. Date of Recept: 01.07.2024 - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 12. RESULTS OF EXAMINATION The Exhibits were analyzed by Colour tests. Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC), and Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) methods. Based on the above methods, the results obtained are give below. 1) Delta – 9 – tetrahydrocannabinol, Delta – 8 – tetrahydrocannabinal, Cannabidiol and Cannabinol have been detected in Exhibits: S- 7. No. of sealed parcel/exhibit (s) received: Eighteen (18) sealed light brown paper envelopes. 8. Details of the Parcels / Exhibits received: Parcel Identity Description including details of their seal(s)/sealing and Exhibits contained therein 1 – 18 Eighteen sealed light brown paper envelopes (each marked S-1, S-3, S-5, S-7, S-9, S-11, S-13, S-15, S-17, S-19, S-21, S-23, S-25, S-27, S- 29, S-31, S-33 & S-35 serially) each sealed with three (03) seals of “C.J. (Jr. Dn.) D. HALLI” containing one autopress polythene pouch each with exhibits marked as Exhibit S-1, Exhibit S-3, Exhibit S-5, Exhibit S-7, Exhibit S-9, Exhibit S-11, Exhibit S-13, Exhibit S-15, Exhibit S-17, Exhibit S-19, Exhibit S-21, Exhibit S-23, Exhibit S-25, Exhibit S-27, Exhibit S-29, Exhibit S-31, Exhibit S-33 & Exhibit S-35 respectively in the Division. Exhibit No.: Description Quantity (number) Weight (with Polythene pouch) Remnant weight (with polythene pouch) S-1 05 25.96 gms 14.06 gms S-3 06 30.49 gms 15.98 gms S-5 06 28.08 gms 16.05 gms S-7 05 27.30 gms 14.67 gms S-9 05 26.57 gms 14.29 gms S-11 05 26.69 gms 14.00 gms S-13 05 25.72 gms 13.75 gms S-15 06 30.20 gms 16.28 gms S-17 05 27.76 gms 14.87 gms S-19 04 26.29 gms 15.63 gms S-21 05 26.41 gms 14.62 gms S-23 05 25.86 gms 14.68 gms S-25 06 26.04 gms 13.84 gms S-27 05 25.51 gms 13.40 gms S-29 02 39.44 gms 19.60 gms S-31 06 28.65 gms 15.41 gms S-33 06 30.00 gms 15.36 gms S-35 Each containing Cuboidal shaped gummy substance 06 31.98 gms 16.82 gms 9. Condition of seal(s): Intact and tallied with specimen seal 10. Purpose of reference: For Chemical Examination & report 11. Duration of Examination: from 04.07.24 to 31.07.24 - 49 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 1, S-3, S-5, S-7, S-9, S-11, S-13, S-15, S-17, S-19, S-21, S-23, S-25, S-27, S-29, S-31, S-33 & S-35 (all the exhibits). 13. After the examination the parcel(s) containing the exhibit(s) / remnants (Weight including polythene pouch: as mentioned in the above table) has / have been sealed with the seal impression as per the specimen provided below: Sd/- (31.07.2024) Signature of the Examiner with Date Dr. CIJO JOHN SCIENTIST ‘B’ (Chemistry)” 10. As can be seen from the aforesaid Test report, the CFSL has conducted only a qualitative analysis and has not conducted a quantitative analysis to determine / ascertain the percentage of THC in the seized substances as required in law and as held in Dhanaram Patel’s case supra. It follows therefrom that in the absence of a quantitative analysis test, the inconclusive / flawed / indefinite / indecisive and unconfirmed / indeterminate test report could not have been made the basis by the respondent to file the impugned charge sheet, which deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. 11. A perusal of the material on record comprising of the impugned complaint, documents, charge sheet, statement of witnesses etc., will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the - 50 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 petitioner is the Director of M/s.Rolling Filters Private Limited and that the said company has not been arraigned as an accused to the impugned proceedings as required under Section 38 of the NDPS Act. In addition thereto, it is relevant to state that the payments for purchasing the seized substances by importing the same from USA was made from the account of the aforesaid company. Further, one more company viz., “The Wellness Collective”, an e-commerce company or its Directors including the petitioner’s wife Smt.Rachita Ravi or other companies viz., M/s. Masturlal Private Limited, M/s.Masturlal Cords and Ropes Private Limited etc., and other entities / persons mentioned in the impugned complaint and other documents have also not been arraigned as parties to the proceedings, in the absence of which, the impugned proceedings only as against the petitioner – accused No.1 and Sri.Sunny Suresh Nair – accused No.2 were not maintainable and deserve to be quashed. 12. In Shekappa’s case supra, this Court quashed the impugned proceedings for alleged offences punishable under the NDPS Act on the ground of non-impleadment of the company / firm as parties to the proceedings by holding as under:- - 51 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the complaint at Annexure-B filed by the respondent –authorised officer for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 24, 26 & 28 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and read with NDPS Rules, 1985 in order to point out that both the petitioners are the Directors of M/s.Rashe Life Science Private Limited, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and an independent, legal, juristic entity, which has not been arraigned as party as mandatorily required under Section 38 of the NDPS Act. In the absence of a company being arraigned as a person along with the Directors, the impugned proceedings are not maintainable and deserves to be quashed. 3.1 In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Aneeta Hoda Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited - (2012) 5 SCC 661. (ii) Ravindranath Bajpe - (2021) SCC OnLine SC 806. (iii) Dayle De’ Souza - (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1012 (iv) Sushil Sethi - (2020) 3 SCC 240 - 52 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 (v) Rafel Del Riya - Crl.P.No.102512/2021 dated 08.02.2022 (vi) Sunil Bharti Mittal - (2015) 4 SCC 609. 4. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be profitable to extract Section 38 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: “38. Offences by companies.— (1) Where an offence under Chapter IV has been committed by a company, every person, who, at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where any offence under Chapter IV has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.” 5. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are the Directors of the aforesaid Company, which has not been arraigned as accused in the impugned proceedings. Under identical circumstances, in relation to the offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in respect of the offences committed by the Companies, the Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hoda (supra) held as under: - 53 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 "58. Applying the doctrine of strict construction, we are of the considered opinion that commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. Thus, the words “as well as the company” appearing in the section make it absolutely unmistakably clear that when the company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the other categories could be vicariously liable for the offence subject to the averments in the petition and proof thereof. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the company is a juristic person and it has its own respectability. If a finding is recorded against it, it would create a concavity in its reputation. There can be situations when the corporate reputation is affected when a Director is indicted. 59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag-net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh [(1970) 3 SCC 491 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 97] which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal [(1984) 4 SCC 352 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 620] does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada [(2000) 1 SCC 1 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 174] is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery [(1987) 3 SCC 684 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 632] has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove." 6. It is needless to state that the provisions contained in Section 141 of the N.I. Act are in pari materia of Section 13 of NDPS Act. So also, in the case of Ravindranath Bajpe (supra), in relation to IPC offences, the Apex Court relied upon the earlier judgment in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra) and came to the conclusion - 54 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 that in the absence of including Company as a party, the Directors alone cannot be made as parties, as under: "8. In Sunil Bharti Mittal [Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687] , it is observed by this Court in paras 42 to 44 as under : (SCC p. 638) “(iii) Circumstances when Director/person in charge of the affairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when the company is an accused person 42. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so. 43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he can be implicated is in those cases where the statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically incorporating such a provision. 44. When the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect. One such example is Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In Aneeta Hada [Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 350 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 241] , the Court noted that if a group of persons that guide the business of the company have the criminal intent, that would be imputed to the body corporate and it is in this backdrop, Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be understood. Such a position is, therefore, because of statutory intendment making it a deeming fiction. Here also, the principle of “alter ego”, - 55 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 was applied only in one direction, namely, where a group of persons that guide the business had criminal intent, that is to be imputed to the body corporate and not the vice versa. Otherwise, there has to be a specific act attributed to the Director or any other person allegedly in control and management of the company, to the effect that such a person was responsible for the acts committed by or on behalf of the company.” 8.1. In Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat [Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] , in para 13, it is observed and held as under : (SCC p. 674) “13. Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. The Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the company. The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. TheBank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.” 8.2. As observed by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] and even thereafter in a catena of decisions, summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. In para 28 in Pepsi Foods Ltd. [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] , it is observed and held as under : (SCC p. 760) - 56 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 8.3. As held by this Court in India Infoline Ltd. [GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd., (2013) 4 SCC 505 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 414] , in the order issuing summons, the learned Magistrate has to record his satisfaction about a prima facie case against the accused who are Managing Director, the Company Secretary and the Directors of the Company and the role played by them in their respective capacities which is sine qua non for initiating criminal proceedings against them. Looking to the averments and the allegations in the complaint, there are no specific allegations and/or averments with respect to role played by them in their capacity as Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director, Deputy General Manager and Planner & Executor. Merely because they are Chairman, Managing Director/Executive Director and/or Deputy General Manager and/or Planner/Supervisor of A-1 and A-6, without any specific role attributed and the role played by them in their capacity, they cannot be arrayed as an accused, more particularly they cannot be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by A-1 and A-6. - 57 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 9. From the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing the process against the respondents herein, Accused 1 to 8, there does not appear that the learned Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction about a prima facie case against Respondents 2 to 5 and 7 and 8. Merely because Respondents 2 to 5 and 7 and 8 are the Chairman/Managing Director/Executive Director/Deputy General Manager/Planner & Executor, automatically they cannot be held vicariously liable, unless, as observed hereinabove, there are specific allegations and averments against them with respect to their individual role. Under the circumstances, the High Court has rightly dismissed the revision applications and has rightly confirmed the order passed by the learned Sessions Court quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process against Respondents 1 to 8 herein — original Accused 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120-B read with Section 34IPC." 7. A similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Sushil Sethi’s case (supra), wherein it is held as under: "7.5. In Sharad Kumar Sanghi [Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane, (2015) 12 SCC 781 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 159] , this Court had an occasion to consider the initiation of criminal proceedings against the Managing Director or any officer of a company where company had not been arrayed as a party to the complaint. In the aforesaid decision, it is observed and held by this Court that in the absence of specific allegation against the Managing Director of vicarious liability, in the absence of company being arrayed as a party, no proceedings can be initiated against such Managing Director or any officer of a company. It is further observed and held that when a complainant intends to rope in a Managing Director or any officer of a company, it is essential to make requisite allegation to constitute the vicarious liability. 8.2. It is also required to be noted that the main allegations can be said to be against the - 58 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 company. The company has not been made a party. The allegations are restricted to the Managing Director and the Director of the company respectively. There are no specific allegations against the Managing Director or even the Director. There are no allegations to constitute the vicarious liability. In Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat [Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] , it is observed and held by this Court that the Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the company when the accused is the company. It is further observed and held that the vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. It is further observed that the statute indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. It is further observed that even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability. In the present case, there are no such specific allegations against the appellants being Managing Director or the Director of the company respectively. Under the circumstances also, the impugned criminal proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside." 8. In Dayle D'Souza's case (supra), the Apex Court held as under: "30. In terms of the ratio above, a company being a juristic person cannot be imprisoned, but it can be subjected to a fine, which in itself is a punishment. Every punishment has adverse consequences, and therefore, prosecution of the company is mandatory. The exception would possibly be when the company itself has ceased to exist or cannot be prosecuted due to a statutory bar. However, such exceptions are of no relevance in the present case. Thus, the present prosecution must fail for this reason as well. 31. There is also another aspect which requires our attention. We have noted in some detail the contents of the complaint, which refers to the - 59 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 violation as certain notices were not displayed and certain registers and forms were not kept at the “worksite”, namely, ATM of the SBI at AST, Komal Chand Petrol Pump, Civil Lines, Sagar, District Sagar. A response to the show cause-cum-compliance notice in the form of a short reply by the authorised signatory of M/s Writer Safeguard Pvt. Ltd. on 2-4-2014, which factum though accepted, has not been adverted to in the complaint. This short reply states that the Company neither manages the ATM nor works at the ATM and that the ATM site was managed by the respective banks and, therefore, the violations as alleged do not apply to them. The complaint does not state why the reply was deficient or indicate even briefly as to the nature of activity and involvement of the Company's workers at the ATM site of State Bank of India mandating compliance at the site in question. We are not ruling on merits, albeit highlighting the complaint being bereft and silent on these aspects and whether the authorities considered the legal provisions in the context of the factual background before initiating prosecution. 32. The authorities bestowed with the duty to confirm compliance are often empowered to take stringent including penal action to ensure observance and check defiance. There cannot also be any quarrel on the need to enforce obedience of the rules as the beneficial legislation protects the worker's basic right to receive minimum wages. The rulebook makes sure that the workers are made aware of their rights and paid their dues as per law without unnecessary disputes or allegations as to absence, overtime payment, deductions, etc.” 9. In Sunil Bharti Mittal's case (supra), the Apex Court held as under: (iii) Circumstances when Director/person in charge of the affairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when the company is an accused person 42. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company - 60 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so. 43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he can be implicated is in those cases where the statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically incorporating such a provision. 44. When the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect. One such example is Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In Aneeta Hada [Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 350 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 241] , the Court noted that if a group of persons that guide the business of the company have the criminal intent, that would be imputed to the body corporate and it is in this backdrop, Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be understood. Such a position is, therefore, because of statutory intendment making it a deeming fiction. Here also, the principle of “alter ego”, was applied only in one direction, namely, where a group of persons that guide the business had criminal intent, that is to be imputed to the body corporate and not the vice versa. Otherwise, there has to be a specific act attributed to the Director or any other person allegedly in control and management of the company, to the effect that such a person was responsible for the acts committed by or on behalf of the company. 45. This very principle is elaborated in various other judgments. We have already taken note of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. [Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 479 : (2011) 1 - 61 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 SCC (Cri) 68] and S.K. Alagh [S.K. Alagh v. State of U.P., (2008) 5 SCC 662 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 686] . A few other judgments reiterating this principle are the following: 45.1.Jethsur Surangbhai v. State of Gujarat [1984 Supp SCC 207 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 474] : (SCC pp. 210-11, para 9) “9. … With due respect what the High Court seems to have missed is that in a case like this where there was serious defalcation of the properties of the Sangh, unless the prosecution proved that there was a close cohesion and collusion between all the accused which formed the subject-matter of a conspiracy, it would be difficult to prove the dual charges particularly against the appellant (A-1). The charge of conspiracy having failed, the most material and integral part of the prosecution story against the appellant disappears. The only ground on the basis of which the High Court has convicted him is that as he was the Chairman of the Managing Committee, he must be held to be vicariously liable for any order given or misappropriation committed by the other accused. The High Court, however, has not referred to the concept of vicarious liability but the findings of the High Court seem to indicate that this was the central idea in the mind of the High Court for convicting the appellant. In a criminal case of such a serious nature mens rea cannot be excluded and once the charge of conspiracy failed the onus lay on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the appellant was directly and personally connected with acts or omissions pertaining to Items 2, 3 and 4. It is conceded by Mr Phadke that no such direct evidence is forthcoming and he tried to argue that as the appellant was Chairman of the Sangh and used to sign papers and approve various tenders, even as a matter of routine he should have acted with care and caution and his negligence would be a positive proof of his intention to commit the offence. We are however unable to agree with this somewhat broad statement of the law. In the absence of a charge of conspiracy the mere fact that the appellant happened to be the Chairman of the Committee would not make him criminally liable in a vicarious sense for Items 2 to 4. There is no evidence either direct or circumstantial - 62 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 to show that apart from approving the purchase of fertilisers he knew that the firms from which the fertilisers were purchased did not exist. Similar is the case with the other two items. Indeed, if the Chairman was to be made liable then all members of the Committee viz. Tahsildar and other nominated members, would be equally liable because all of them participated in the deliberations of the meetings of the Committee, a conclusion which has not even been suggested by the prosecution. As Chairman of the Sangh the appellant had to deal with a large variety of matters and it would not be humanly possible for him to analyse and go into the details of every small matter in order to find out whether there has been any criminal breach of trust. In fact, the hero of the entire show seems to be A-3 who had so stage-managed the drama as to shield his guilt and bring the appellant in the forefront. But that by itself would not be conclusive evidence against the appellant. There is nothing to show that A-3 had either directly or indirectly informed the appellant regarding the illegal purchase of fertilisers or the missing of the five oil engines which came to light much later during the course of the audit. Far from proving the intention the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had any knowledge of defalcation of Items 2 to 4. In fact, so far as Item 3 is concerned, even Mr Phadke conceded that there is no direct evidence to connect the appellant.” 45.2.Sham Sunder v. State of Haryana [(1989) 4 SCC 630 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 783] : (SCC p. 632, para 9) “9. But we are concerned with a criminal liability under penal provision and not a civil liability. The penal provision must be strictly construed in the first place. Secondly, there is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless the statute takes that also within its fold. Section 10 does not provide for such liability. It does not make all the partners liable for the offence whether they do business or not.” 45.3.Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI [(2003) 5 SCC 257 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1121] : (SCC p. 277, para 30) - 63 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 “30. In our view, under the penal law, there is no concept of vicarious liability unless the said statute covers the same within its ambit. In the instant case, the said law which prevails in the field i.e. the Customs Act, 1962 the appellants have been thereinunder wholly discharged and the GCS granted immunity from prosecution.” 45.4.Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat [(2008) 5 SCC 668 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] : (SCC p. 674, para 13) “13. Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. The Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the company. The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.” 45.5.R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta [(2009) 1 SCC 516 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 567] : (SCC p. 527, para 32) “32. Allegations contained in the FIR are for commission of offences under a general statute. A vicarious liability can be fastened only by reason of a provision of a statute and not otherwise. For the said purpose, a legal fiction has to be created. Even under a special statute when the vicarious criminal liability is fastened on a person on the premise that he was in charge of the affairs of the company and responsible to it, all the ingredients laid down under the statute - 64 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 must be fulfilled. A legal fiction must be confined to the object and purport for which it has been created.” 45.6.Sharon Michael v. State of T.N. [(2009) 3 SCC 375 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 103] : (SCC p. 383, para 16) “16. The first information report contains details of the terms of contract entered into by and between the parties as also the mode and manner in which they were implemented. Allegations have been made against the appellants in relation to execution of the contract. No case of criminal misconduct on their part has been made out before the formation of the contract. There is nothing to show that the appellants herein who hold different positions in the appellant Company made any representation in their personal capacities and, thus, they cannot be made vicariously liable only because they are employees of the Company.” 45.7.Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani [(2009) 6 SCC 475 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1113] : (SCC pp. 480-81, paras 16-19) “16. We have noticed hereinbefore that despite of the said road being under construction, the first respondent went to the police station thrice. He, therefore, was not obstructed from going to the police station. In fact, a firm action had been taken by the authorities. The workers were asked not to do any work on the road. We, therefore, fail to appreciate that how, in a situation of this nature, the Managing Director and the Directors of the Company as also the Architect can be said to have committed an offence under Section 341 IPC. 17. The Penal Code, 1860 save and except in some matters does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part of a person. Commission of an offence by raising a legal fiction or by creating a vicarious liability in terms of the provisions of a statute must be expressly stated. The Managing Director or the Directors of the Company, thus, cannot be said to have committed an offence only because they are holders of offices. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, therefore, in our opinion, was - 65 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 not correct in issuing summons without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter. The Managing Director and the Directors of the Company should not have been summoned only because some allegations were made against the Company. 18. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] this Court held as under : (SCC p. 760, para 28) ‘28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.’ 19. Even as regards the availability of the remedy of filing an application for discharge, the same would not mean that although the allegations made in the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, do not disclose an offence or it is found to be otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, still the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 10. Point No.(i): Whether the complaint was maintainable without the Company being made an accused in the proceedings? - 66 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the Managing Director of Syngenta India Limited which is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The entire proceedings are initiated for offences punishable under Sections 6(a) and 19(a) of the Act. Sections 6 and 19 and 21 of the Act read as follows: “6. The Central Government may, after consultation of the Committee and by notification in the Official Gazette, specify – (a) the minimum limits of germination and purity with respect to any seed of any notified kind or variety: (b) the mark or label to indicate that such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) and the particulars which marks or label may contain. 19. Penalty.—If any person— (a) contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder; or (b) prevents a Seed Inspector from taking sample under this Act; or (c) prevents a Seed Inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under this Act, he shall, on conviction, be punishable— (i) for the first offence with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, and (ii) in the event of such person having been previously convicted of an offence under this section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 21. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, - 67 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation. – For the purpose of this section,- (a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.” Section 6 deals with the minimum limit of germination and purity with respect to any seed of any notified kind or variety. Section 19 deals with penalty. Section 19(a) directs any person indulging in acts contrary to any provisions of the Act or the Rules would become liable for prosecution under the Act. Section 21 deals with offences by companies. Therefore, the directors of the Company are also held to be vicariously liable and become liable to be proceeded against and punished. 12. It is not in dispute that the Company is not made a party in these proceedings which is in violation of Section 21 (supra). The proceedings without, at the outset, the Company being made a party would not be maintainable. The issue in this regard need not detain - 68 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 this Court for long or delve deeper in to the matter as identical provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of ANEETA HADA1 (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “53. It is to be borne in mind that Section 141 of the Act is concerned with the offences by the company. It makes the other persons vicariously liable for commission of an offence on the part of the company. As has been stated by us earlier, the vicarious liability gets attracted when the condition precedent laid down in Section 141 of the Act stands satisfied. There can be no dispute that as the liability is penal in nature, a 1 (2012) 5 SCC 661 strict construction of the provision would be necessitous and, in a way, the warrant. 56. We have referred to the aforesaid passages only to highlight that there has to be strict observance of the provisions regard being had to the legislative intendment because it deals with penal provisions and a penalty is not to be imposed affecting the rights of persons, whether juristic entities or individuals, unless they are arrayed as accused. It is to be kept in mind that the power of punishment is vested in the legislature and that is absolute in Section 141 of the Act which clearly speaks of commission of offence by the company. The learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently urged that the use of the term “as well as” in the section is of immense significance and, in its tentacle, it brings in the company as well as the Director and/or other officers who are responsible for the acts of the company and, therefore, a prosecution against the Directors or other officers is tenable even if the company is not arraigned as an accused. The words “as well as” have to be understood in the context. 59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag- net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh [(1970) 3 SCC 491 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 97] which - 69 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal [(1984) 4 SCC 352 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 620] does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada [(2000) 1 SCC 1 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 174] is Crl.P.No.102512/2112 overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery [(1987) 3 SCC 684 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 632] has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove.” The said judgment in the case of ANEETA HADA has been followed in plethora of cases by the Apex Court and this Court. Section 21 of the Act , is in pari materia with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 considered by the Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada. Therefore, the entire proceedings would stand vitiated as the complaint itself, without at the outset the company being made a party, would not be maintainable. Therefore, I answer the point arising in favour of the petitioner." 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the respondent has filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 26.12.2023 to including the company / firm as party to the proceedings, the present petition is liable to be rejected. 11. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the order sheet maintained in Spl.C.C.No.2150/2023 in order to contend that the petitioners had preferred the present petition as long back as on 01.12.2023 itself much prior to the respondent filing the said application before the Trial Court and subsequent filing of the said application on 26.12.2023 would not cure the initial / inherent defect in instituting the proceedings at the point in time without impleading / arraying the company / firm as parties to the proceedings. It - 70 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 is therefore contended that though the respondent has subsequently filed the said application, the initial / inherent defect and impleading the company could not be cured as on the date of the taking of the cognizance by the Trial Court on 27.09.2023, which is not a curable defect. 12. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, it was incumbent upon the respondent to implead and array the company as party prior to the Trial Court before taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent did not implead or arraign the company as party to the proceedings but instead chose to implead / arraign the petitioners as accused Nos.1 and 2, respectively and at the time of the taking cognizance, the company / firm were not arraigned as parties. It is therefore clear that merely because application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 26.12.2023, subsequent to the taking of cognizance by the Trial Court and subsequent to the petitioners filing the present petition on 01.12.2023 interalia contending that the proceedings were not maintainable for non-impleadment of the company / firm as parties to the proceedings, the said initial / inherent defect in initiating proceedings and the Trial Court not being competent to take cognizance, the said defect cannot be cured by subsequent filing of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which cannot be said to relate back to the date of institution of the proceedings, which were otherwise not maintainable in law. Under these circumstances, even this contention urged on behalf of the respondent cannot be accepted. - 71 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the light of the undisputed fact that the petitioners are the Directors of the aforesaid Company, which has not been arraigned as party- accused, the impugned proceedings only against the Directors without arraigning a company is not maintainable and deserves to be quashed. 14. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.2150/2023 pending on the file of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court for NDPS Cases, Bangalore City, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.” 13. As stated supra, having regard to Section 38 of the NDPS Act and the material on record which discloses that apart from the petitioner – accused No.1 and Sri.Sunny Suresh Nair- accused No.2, the companies, entities, firms, persons etc., referred to in the complaint and other documents have not been arraigned / impleaded as parties, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground also. - 72 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 14. A perusal of the material on record including the seizure memo, test memo, test report etc., will indicate that carton boxes containing gummies were seized by the respondents; the said gummies were subjected to test by the CFSL, Hyderabad, which submitted a Examination Report as stated supra; in this context, it is pertinent to note that Regulation 2.16 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, permit food products to contain hemp seeds and seed products containing THC in terms of the parameters mentioned in the said Regulation as hereunder:- 2.16. Hemp seeds and seed products: (1) For the purpose of these regulations, hemp seed means the hulled, non-viable seeds obtained from Cannabis sativa/other indigenous Cannabis species. The cultivation of Cannabis species for the purpose of hemp seeds in India shall comply with Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 and rules made thereunder. (2) The hemp seed, hemp seed oil and hemp seed flour shall be sold as food or used as an ingredient in a food for sale subject to conforming to the following standards:- (i) Hemp seed: Sl. No. Parameters Requirements 1. Moisture, percent m/m, Max. 7.0 2. Protein (N x 6.25), percent m/m, Min. 30.0 - 73 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 3. Fat, percent m/m, Min. 45.0 4. Ash, percent m/m, Max. 6.0 5. Total THC, mg/kg, Max. 5.0 (ii) Oil extracted from hemp seeds Sl. No. Parameters Requirements 1. Free fatty acid (expressed as Oleic Acid), percent m/m, Max. 0.50 2. Peroxide value, mEq/kg, Max. 10.0 3. Total THC, mg/kg, Max. 10.0 (iii) Hemp seed flour means solid product after seeds are milled to a powder with or without extraction of oil. The flour prepared after hemp seed has been pressed to extract oil shall clearly be labelled as “Deoiled hemp seed flour”. Sl. No. Parameters Requirements 1. Total THC, mg/kg, Max. 5.0 (iv) The total THC shall not exceed 0.2 mg/kg in any beverages made from hemp seeds. (v) Any other food for sale that consists of hemp seed or seed products shall not exceed Total THC content of 5 mg/kg. (3) The level of cannabidiol (CBD) in any food for sale consisting of hemp seed or seed products shall not exceed 75 mg/kg. (4) Cannabinoids in any food for sale consisting of hemp seed or seed products shall only be present naturally in or on the seeds. - 74 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 (5) The food for sale that consists of hemp seed or seed products shall not be labelled or otherwise presented for sale in a form which expressly or by implication suggests that the product has a psychoactive effect. (6) The label for the food containing hemp seed or seed products for sale shall not include:- (a) a nutrient content claim about cannabidiol; or (b) a health claim about cannabidiol; or (c) an image or representation of any part of the Cannabis plant (including the leaf of that plant) other than the seed; or (d) the words “cannabis”, “marijuana” or words of similar meaning. (7) The label for the food containing hemp seed or seed products for sale may include the word “Hemp”. (8) No person shall manufacture, import or sale any food product containing hemp seed or seed products intended for administration to infant upto the age of 24 months. Note. – 1. Hulled seeds mean seeds from which the outer coat or hull of seeds has been removed. 2. Non-viable seed mean seeds that are not able to germinate. 3. Seeds include a part of a seed. 4. Total THC means the total amount of delta 9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and delta 9- tetrahydrocannabinolic acit. - 75 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 5. Cannabidiol (CBD) is the non-psychoactive component of Cannabis species. 6. Cannabinoids means any of various naturally- occurring, biologically active, chemical constituents such as cannabidiol or cannabinol of Cannabis species including some that possess psychoactive properties like delta 9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). 15. As stated earlier, the respondent did not conduct quantitative analysis test to determine the percentage of THC in the seized substances and in the absence of the same, so long as food substances / food products / seized substances are permitted to contain hemp seeds and seed products, without determining or ascertaining the extent / percentage of THC as contemplated in Regulation 2.16 supra, it was impermissible in law for the respondent to file the impugned charge sheet, which is contrary to the said Regulation 2.16 especially when the aforesaid M/s. Rollers Filters Private Limited, of which the petitioner was a Director had been granted a licence to import the seized products / substances by the Food, Safety and Standards Authority of India and consequently, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground also. - 76 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49731 CRL.P No. 6041 of 2025 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner – accused No.1 are illegal and contrary to facts and law as well as the provisions of the NDPS Act and the same deserve to be quashed. 17. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The entire proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.2251/2024 pending on the file of XXXIV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases, Bangalore, registered for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, arising out of NCB File No.48/1/13/2024/BZU on the file of respondent, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl. List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2