Shivaji Rathore 17 April 2026
The Delhi High Court has recently delivered a significant ruling clarifying the scope of the term “ganja” under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court held that dried leaves and small branches of the cannabis plant do not fall within the statutory definition of “ganja” unless they are accompanied by flowering or fruiting tops, thereby reiterating a strict interpretation of penal provisions under the Act.
The case arose out of FIR No. 670/2024 registered at Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi, where the accused persons were allegedly found in possession of 21.95 kilograms of ganja. However, as recorded in the seizure memo, the recovered substance consisted of dried leaves and small branches, which raised serious questions about whether the seized material actually satisfied the legal definition of ganja under the NDPS Act.
While examining the matter, the Court referred to the statutory definition under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, which clearly specifies that ganja refers only to the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, explicitly excluding seeds and leaves when they are not accompanied by such tops. This distinction became crucial in assessing whether the alleged recovery could be treated as commercial quantity under the Act.
The Court noted that the seized material was not a homogeneous substance consisting purely of flowering or fruiting tops but rather a mixture including leaves, stems, and branches. Relying on earlier precedents, the Court reiterated that in cases involving such mixed or heterogeneous material, only the actual narcotic component namely, the flowering or fruiting tops can be considered for determining the quantity of ganja. Non-narcotic parts like leaves, seeds, and stalks cannot be mechanically included in the total weight for the purpose of invoking stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.
Importantly, the Court observed that since the entire substance had been weighed together without separating the narcotic content from non-narcotic material, the actual quantity of ganja remained uncertain. This uncertainty was significant because the alleged recovery of 21.95 kilograms was only marginally above the threshold for commercial quantity, which is 20 kilograms. If the excluded parts were removed, the actual quantity of ganja could fall below the commercial threshold, thereby affecting the applicability of the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
In light of this discrepancy, the Court held that such issues regarding the exact quantity of contraband are matters for trial and that the accused could not be denied bail solely on the basis of a doubtful or inflated recovery. The Court further took into account the period of custody undergone by the accused, which exceeded one year, as well as the fact that the trial was likely to take considerable time.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court granted bail to the applicants, observing that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not strictly apply in the present circumstances due to the uncertainty in determining the actual quantity of ganja recovered.
This ruling reinforces the principle that penal statutes must be interpreted strictly and that investigative agencies must ensure accurate identification and quantification of contraband substances. It also highlights that inclusion of non-narcotic parts of a plant in the total weight can have serious legal consequences, particularly in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
Case Details:
Mujabil v. GNCT of Delhi & Anr.; Shahid @ Aabu v. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appln. 140/2026 and 384/2026, decided on 06 April 2026 by the Delhi High Court, per Justice Prateek Jalan.
