Kerala High Court Upholds NDPS Act's Definition of Cannabis Cultivation

Court clarifies cultivation in pots falls under NDPS Act; inherent powers to quash proceedings exercised sparingly.

The Kerala High Court, in a pivotal judgment delivered on November 4, 2025, upheld the prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) against Jatin, accused of cultivating cannabis plants in pots on the terrace of a rented building in Thiruvananthapuram. The Court, presided by Justice C.S. Dias, rejected the petitioner's plea to quash the proceedings, emphasizing that cultivation of cannabis in pots is indeed considered cultivation under the NDPS Act.

The case originated from a raid conducted by the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, which seized five cannabis plants and a quantity of ganja seeds and dried branches from the petitioner’s residence. Jatin's defense argued that the absence of flowering or fruiting tops on the plants meant they did not qualify as cannabis plants under Section 2(iv) of the NDPS Act. Additionally, Jatin contested the definition of 'cultivate', claiming that only planting in the earth should be considered as cultivation under the Act.

Justice Dias refuted these arguments, citing the statutory definitions within the NDPS Act. The judgment clarified that a cannabis plant is defined as any plant of the genus cannabis, without the necessity of flowering or fruiting tops. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Act does not differentiate between cultivation in pots or directly in the earth, underscoring that the essence of the offence lies in the act of planting and nurturing a cannabis plant, irrespective of the medium.

The Court also addressed the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), emphasizing that such powers should be used sparingly and are not intended to resolve disputed factual questions requiring trial. Justice Dias highlighted that the prima facie case against Jatin was evident when allegations were taken at face value, thus not warranting the quashing of proceedings at this stage.

In delivering the judgment, references were made to previous rulings, including the Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which outlines the principles guiding the exercise of inherent powers by High Courts. The Court maintained that the trial court is the appropriate forum to address the disputed facts presented by Jatin, such as his residency at the premises and the nature of the seized contraband.

This judgment reinforces the stringent application of the NDPS Act provisions concerning cannabis cultivation and clarifies the scope of judicial powers in pre-trial proceedings. Jatin, now facing trial, retains the option to present his defense and contest the charges within the trial court framework.

Bottom Line:

NDPS Act - Cultivation of cannabis plants in pots considered as cultivation under the Act - A cannabis plant does not require flowering or fruiting tops to qualify as a cannabis plant under Section 2(iv) of the Act - The inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) must be exercised sparingly and not for disputed questions of fact requiring trial.

Statutory provision(s): Sections 2(iii), 2(iv), 8(b), 20(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985; Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Jatin v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2807179