In a detailed order that stirred interest among legal circles on Tuesday, the Kerala High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a 28-year-old man accused of cultivating cannabis on the terrace of his rented home in Thiruvananthapuram. The court made it clear that even if the plants were grown in pots, the act still amounted to “cultivation” under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
Justice C.S. Dias, who authored the judgment, held that “the essence of the offence lies in the conscious act of planting and nurturing a cannabis plant in contravention of the law.”
Background
The case arose from Crime No. 13 of 2025, registered by the Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotic Special Squad, Thiruvananthapuram. Officials claimed they received credible information on April 17, 2025, that the petitioner, Jatin, son of Kartar Singh, was cultivating cannabis on the terrace of a rented building at Muttathara.
During a raid, officers allegedly found five cannabis plants, all under two feet tall, along with five grams of ganja seeds and dried branches inside his bedroom. The prosecution said this clearly established cultivation and possession under Sections 8(c), 20(a)(i) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act.
The accused, however, through his counsel Advocate Suman Chakravarthy, argued that the plants were too immature to qualify as “cannabis plants” and lacked the flowering or fruiting tops that legally define ganja. He also maintained that the plants were in pots, not soil, and that he had already vacated the premises.
Court's Observations
The bench examined the NDPS Act closely, especially the definitions of “cannabis plant” and “ganja” under Section 2. It observed that while ganja refers to the flowering or fruiting tops of a cannabis plant, the Act’s prohibition on “cultivation” covers the entire cannabis plant regardless of its stage of growth.
“The definition does not state that a plant assumes the character of a cannabis plant only when it bears flowering or fruiting tops,” the judge noted.
Justice Dias cited previous rulings, including the Kerala High Court’s 1988 judgment in Kunju and Others v. State of Kerala, which clarified that cultivation of cannabis plants cannot be presumed to be only for producing ganja.
Turning to the argument about planting in pots, the court relied on dictionary definitions of the term cultivate and legal interpretations from UK cases under the Misuse of Drugs Act. “Growing cannabis plants in pots at a bedroom window was held to be ‘cultivating’ them,” the judge pointed out.
He emphasized that the word “cultivate” under the NDPS Act “encompasses any act of planting, tilling, raising, growing, farming, or gardening a cannabis plant with mens rea, whether such cultivation is carried out in the earth or in a pot.”
Arguments and Precedents
The defence cited a series of High Court and Supreme Court judgments-from Alakh Ram v. State of U.P. to Killo Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh to argue that there was no evidence linking the accused to the seized items. They stressed that mere presence near the plants does not establish guilt.
However, the prosecution, represented by Public Prosecutor C.S. Hrithwik, countered that Jatin was “caught red-handed” and that all material evidence was collected from his conscious possession.
“The question whether the accused was in occupation of the premises or whether the seized leaves contained flowering tops are matters for trial,” the court observed, adding that it cannot act as a “mini-trial” court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the new criminal procedure law replacing the CrPC.
Decision
After reviewing the material, Justice Dias concluded that the allegations in the complaint, even when taken at face value, “prima facie disclose the offences alleged against the petitioner.”
He declined to invoke the High Court’s inherent powers to quash the proceedings, citing the celebrated State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal guidelines, which restrict the court from interfering unless the allegations are absurd or mala fide.
The bench finally ruled:
“This is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing the complaint. The petitioner will be at liberty to raise all his contentions before the Trial Court.”
With that, the petition stood dismissed, sending the matter back for full trial before the Sessions Court.
Case Title:- Jatin v. State of Kerala
Case Number:- CRL.MC No. 8469 of 2025
Date of Judgment:- 4th November 2025
