Supreme Court: Under which circumstances person accused of possessing commercial quantity of Ganja can be released on regular bail?

Though the seized quantity of contraband/ganja is shown as a

little above the ‘commercial quantity’ under the NDPS Act, we find that the said seized quantity also contained leaves, seeds and dry vegetative floral parts, which need to be excluded while computing the actual quantity of the contraband/ganja.

Counter affidavit/reply has been filed by the State of

Chhattisgarh and the learned counsel appearing for the State fairly

concedes that the appellant, Rajesh Sahu, has no past antecedents.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the

appellant, Rajesh Sahu, is entitled to grant of bail at this stage.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

RAJESH SAHU  Vs  STATE OF CHHATTISGARH .

Dated: SEPTEMBER 01, 2025.

Print Page

What are small, intermediate and commercial quantity of Ganja as per NDPS Act and what are punishments for these offences?

 As per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the "small quantity" of ganja is defined as any quantity up to 1 kilogram (1000 grams). This threshold is specified by a notification from the Central Government and is used to determine the severity of punishment for offences involving ganja.

• : Up to 1 kg (1000 grams) of ganja

• : 20 kg or more of ganja

Possession of ganja in a quantity less than or equal to 1 kg is treated as a "small quantity" offence under the NDPS Act, which attracts a comparatively lighter penalty—rigorous imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to ₹10,000, or both. Quantities above 1 kg but below 20 kg fall into an intermediate category, and quantities of 20 kg or more are considered "commercial quantity," attracting much harsher penalties.

Print Page

Bombay HC: [NDPS Act] Combined Weight Of LSD & Blotter Relevant To Determine Small Or Commercial Quantity of Contraband

 For all the above reasons, we hold that a blotter paper forms an integral part of the L.S.D. (drug) when put on it for consumption and, as such, the weight of the blotter paper containing L.S.D. will have to be considered for determining a small or commercial quantity of the offending drug under the NDPS Act, 1985. Further, we also hold that the blotter paper that carries the drug (L.S.D. drops), which facilitates its consumption as a whole, is a preparation, mixture, or neutral substance within the meaning of the NDPS Act, 1985.{Para 113}

114. Since the referral order refers to L.S.D. as a drug, we have continued to adopt that term when answering the two questions referred to. However, in terms of Section 2 (xxiii) of the NDPS Act, there is no dispute that L.S.D. will have to be classified as a psychotropic substance and not a drug.

115. In conclusion, therefore, we endorse the view taken in Anuj Keshwani (supra) that the combined weight of the L.S.D. and the blotter is relevant to determine small or commercial quantities and not the view in Hitesh Malhotra (supra) and Harsh Meshram (supra) that only the weight of the pure L.S.D. is the determinative factor. The reference is answered accordingly.

In the High Court of Bombay at Goa

(Before M.S. Sonak and Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.)

H.S. Arun Kumar, Vs State of Goa, 

Criminal Application (Bail) No. 752/2021 (F)

Decided on November 9, 2022, 

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 4696 : (2022) 4 Bom CR (Cri) 517.

Print Page

Bombay HC: The weight of the paper used to carry LSD drops cannot be counted while determining the quantity of the contraband material

In my view, though after swallowing piece of paper, which causes release of drug but since that paper only carries drug and facilitates its consumption, the paper with LSD drops, as a whole, is neither “preparation”, within the meaning of Section 2(xx), nor a “mixture” within the meaning of of the NDPS Act. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hira Singh (supra) is concerned, issue therein was, whether mixture of narcotic drug or psychotropic substances with one or more neutral substances, quantity of neutral substances can be excluded while determining the small or commercial quantity of narcotic drug and psychotropic substances. However herein, the papers containing dried LSD drops of LSD solution, not being a mixture, and the paper being not a neutral substance, judgment of the Apex Court, has no application to the facts of this case. {Para 11}

12. The learned Judge, as it appears from the impugned order, has accounted weight of papers “while calculating and determining quantity of the LSD as a “commercial quantity”. In addition, while holding quantity of charas recovered from the applicant was ‘commercial quantity’, is equally incorrect because charas allegedly recovered from the applicant was 970 gms i.e. less than 1 kg.

13. Thus, in consideration of the facts of the case, the findings of the learned Judge that weight of the paper containing dried LSD drops of LSD solution is required to be accounted while determining its quantity; whether small or otherwise is incorrect. In this case, the Chemical Analyser's report, shows quantity of LSD drops solution was 0.4128 milligrams, which was below 0.1 gm of commercial quantity. Therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are not applicable to the facts of this case.

 In the High Court of Bombay

(Before Sandeep K. Shinde, J.)

Hitesh Hemant Malhotra Vs State of Maharashtra.

Criminal Bail Application No. 352 of 2020

Decided on December 7, 2020,

Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3581 : (2021) 1 Bom CR (Cri) 353.

Print Page

Does the court impose severer punishment on the accused while convicting him for possessing more than a commercial quantity of Narcotic?

Therefore, quantity of substance would fall into “such factors as

it may deem fit” and while exercising its discretion of imposing the sentence/imprisonment higher than the minimum, if the Court has taken into consideration such factor of larger/higher quantity of substance, it cannot be said that the Court has committed an error. The Court has a wide discretion to impose the sentence/imprisonment ranging between 10 years to 20 years and while imposing such sentence/imprisonment in addition, the Court may also take into consideration other factors as

enumerated in Section 32B (a) to (f). Therefore, while imposing a

punishment higher than the minimum sentence, if the Court has

considered such factor as it may deem fit other than the factors

enumerated in Section 32B (a) to (f), the High Court has to only

consider whether “such factor” is a relevant factor or not.{6.1 }

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2021

GURDEV SINGH  Vs STATE OF PUNJAB 

Author: M. R. Shah, J.

Dated:April 6, 2021

Print Page

Supreme Court: Quantity of neutral substance in mixture of Narcotic Drugs should be taken into consideration for determining small or commercial quantity of Narcotic Drugs

 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Reference is answered as under:

(I). The decision of this Court in the case of E. Micheal Raj (Supra) taking

the view that in the mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance with

one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of the neutral substance(s) is not

to be taken into consideration while determining the small quantity or

commercial quantity of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and only the

actual content by weight of the offending narcotic drug which is relevant for the

purpose of determining whether it would constitute small quantity or

commercial quantity, is not a good law;

(II). In case of seizure of mixture of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic

Substances with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of neutral

substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with

actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the “small or

commercial quantity” of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances;

(III). Section 21 of the NDPS Act is not stand-alone provision and must be

construed along with other provisions in the statute including provisions in the

NDPS Act including Notification No.S.O.2942(E) dated 18.11.2009 and

Notification S.O 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001;

(IV). Challenge to Notification dated 18.11.2009 adding “Note 4” to the

Notification dated 19.10.2001, fails and it is observed and held that the same is

not ultra vires to the Scheme and the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act.

Consequently, writ petitions and Civil Appeal No. 5218/2017 challenging the  aforesaid notification stand dismissed.

11. The Reference is answered accordingly.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2017

HIRA SINGH  Vs  UNION OF INDIA 

M.R. SHAH, J.

Dated:APRIL 22, 2020.

Print Page