Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke of the Bombay High Court headed the bench that made this landmark judgment and clarified that, under the NDPS Act, the term 'ganja' specifically refers to the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, excluding any seeds or leaves. This clarification was issued when admitting an accused person on bail who was charged of carrying a commercial quantity of ganja.Case Background The accused was arrested for transporting an enormous quantity of ganja which is commercially quantified under the NDPS Act. The police recovered ganja from the accused, and this led to invoking charges under the draconian provisions of the Act for which bail became a cumbersome process to be acquired. According to this Act, possession and sale of such drugs in commercial quantities warrant very heavy punishment. The term ganja has consistently been a definition in the Act and the Act has clearly provided that ganja only means the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant excluding the seeds and leaves. Key Argument The case rested on an argument that whatever was seized comprised parts of the cannabis plant, which includes leaves and seeds, which did not come within the technical definition of ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. They argued that since the seized material consisted of something more than the flowering tops, strict provisions of the NDPS Act related to commercial quantity should not be attracted. Judgement Observation Any seeds or leaves accompanying the balance of the seized material would not be considered ganja under the Act. It was accordingly noted by the court that the prosecution had not established that the seized quantity was entirely composed of flowering tops of the cannabis plant, which, independently, would justify charges under the NDPS Act for commercial quantities. Grant of Bail Justice Phalke observed, The learned counsel for the accused submits that the prosecution has not even been able to establish what the seized material is. That in itself casts considerable doubt over whether the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act have been applied. She concluded that further investigation and in-depth chemical analysis would be necessary to determine whether the substance fell within the definition of ganja in the Act. This case, while very particular, drives the point home to strictly follow the definitions provided by the NDPS Act, especially when cases entail strict penalties. The court's judgment is one such reminder that in cases related to drug-related matters, the prosecution must firmly and correctly establish the nature of substances seized in order to apply the law.