Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis
Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,-- (a) cultivates any cannabis plant; The Act came into force on 14 Nov 1985.
Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,--
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis,
shall be punishable,--
1[(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and
(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),--
(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2[one year], or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.]
Section 20, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of Kerala v. Rajesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
REPORTABLE Rastogi/Malhotra 24 Jan 2020, Crl A 154-157/2020. Use Judgement of Main Case order-8.pdf, not same-date order-9 ROP. MCP flagged WRONG DOCUMENT (cache reuse) but the body is this reportable NDPS s.37 judgment. Twin conditions in s.37(1)(b) for bail in commercial-quantity NDPS are mandatory: the court must be satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail; the reverse burden is not a formality. High Court bail set aside. Map CrPC 439 (HC/Sessions bail) and successor BNSS 483 (mapping.csv near-identical). Do not map CrPC 482 (not the ratio).
On this section: Underlying offence was cannabis / s.20 commercial quantity; that is what triggered the s.37 overlay.
-
Shashikant Khanbat vs State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious offences under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, bail may be denied even after extended pre-trial custody, but the appellate court must simultaneously intervene to expedite trial completion through specific, time-bound directions to the trial court, thereby balancing the dual imperatives of protecting public interest against serious drug crimes and ensuring the constitutional right to speedy trial.
On this section: The petitioner was charged under this section for possession or trafficking of narcotic drugs. The court considered the gravity of offence under this section as a primary reason for denying bail.
-
Prabhu Yadav vs State of Orissa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person accused of an offence under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not categorically debarred from bail; bail may be granted where circumstances warrant it, subject to appropriate terms and conditions to ensure the accused's appearance in court and protection of the trial process.
On this section: Defines the offence for which the petitioner was accused; the Court considered the nature and severity of this specific offence in deciding bail eligibility
-
Gian Chand vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once possession of contraband articles is established in a drug trafficking case, the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 operate against the accused, presuming conscious possession and knowledge of the contraband. The burden thereupon shifts to the accused to prove that he had no knowledge or conscious possession of the contraband. The absence of independent witnesses does not render police testimony unreliable if such testimony is found to be cogent, convincing, credible and reliable upon scrutiny. The failure to examine incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not vitiate the trial unless material prejudice to the accused is demonstrated. In cases of narcotics possession, the facts regarding how the contraband came to be in the vehicle fall within the special knowledge of the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
On this section: Possession of contraband articles constitutes an offense and requires conscious possession as a necessary element
-
Dehal Singh vs State of H. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When contraband is recovered from a private vehicle in which an accused is traveling, both the driver and passengers are presumed to have conscious possession of such contraband. The burden then shifts to the accused to prove that possession was not conscious. Mere statements under Section 313 CrPC without examination as a witness under oath are insufficient to discharge this burden. Weight discrepancies in forensic samples are immaterial when field weighing is done using non-precision scales (such as grocery shop scales) and laboratory weighing is done using precision scales, provided there is no evidence of tampering with or mishandling of the samples. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (regarding search of persons) is satisfied by offering the accused an option to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate when the primary object of search is a vehicle, and personal search occurs incidentally after arrest at the police station.
On this section: Applied to convict both appellants for possession of Charas (27.8 kg) with intent to traffic
-
Ajmer Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When narcotic drugs are recovered from a bag or container carried by a person (rather than from the body of the person), the procedural safeguards prescribed under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 do not apply, as Section 50 applies only to personal body search. The non-compliance with Section 50 regarding bag search does not vitiate the conviction. Furthermore, absence of independent witnesses does not necessarily vitiate evidence in narcotics cases if reasonable efforts were made to involve independent witnesses and police testimony is found credible upon careful evaluation. The principle of parity in sentencing applies only when co-accused are tried together in the same proceeding and convicted simultaneously; it does not apply when co-accused are tried in separate trials under separate FIRs.
On this section: Criminalized unlawful possession of narcotic drugs without permit or license. The appellant was convicted under this section for possessing 500 grams of charas.
-
Piyush Khadayat vs The State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where the charge sheet filed after investigation fails to assign any specific role to the accused and merely alleges him to be a co-passenger in a vehicle, without establishing active participation, knowledge, or facilitation of the alleged narcotic drug offence, the Supreme Court will grant bail as there is insufficient credible evidence to justify the conclusion that the accused could ultimately be held guilty of the offences alleged under the NDPS Act, 1985.
On this section: One of the principal offence sections under which the petitioner was accused; applied in conjunction with sections 8 and 60
-
Jubbar Ali Tarafdar vs Union of India Represented by Intelligence
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person has been in custody for an extended period (more than five years) and the trial has progressed minimally (only 2 of 8 witnesses examined) with substantial additional time anticipated for completion, bail should be granted absent express opinion on case merits, considering the fundamental principle that prolonged detention without proportional trial progress violates principles of natural justice and the right to speedy trial, even in serious NDPS offenses.
On this section: Petitioner charged under these sections relating to possession and trafficking of narcotic substances. Court applied these sections as the legal basis for trial court's jurisdiction and conditions for bail release.
-
Raju Malviya vs State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has undergone prolonged incarceration (over three years) in a criminal case, and considering other relevant factors, the period of imprisonment itself becomes a material consideration for grant of bail, and the Court should exercise its discretion to release the accused on bail with appropriate conditions.
On this section: Offence for which Raju Malviya was arrested and charged; this section typically deals with possession of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances with intention to consume.
-
Prem Singh vs The State of Himachal Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person convicted of a serious offense has already undergone a substantial period of imprisonment (approximately one-third or more of the sentence) while awaiting the outcome of an appeal, and considering other relevant factors including the nature of the offense and individual circumstances, the Court may exercise its discretion to grant bail pending the final disposal of the appeal, with appropriate terms and conditions.
On this section: The petitioner was convicted under these sections for offenses relating to narcotic drugs. These sections were the basis of the original conviction in the trial court, making them relevant to understanding the gravity of the offense and sentencing considerations.
-
Lalanu Sekh vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an undertrial accused in a serious criminal case (including drug trafficking cases under the NDPS Act) has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration without conviction, and on review of the materials on record a prima facie case for bail is established, the Supreme Court may exercise its discretion to grant bail on usual terms and conditions, notwithstanding the seriousness of the charges and prior High Court rejection.
On this section: The petitioner was charged under these sections for alleged drug trafficking offenses. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) relates to possession of contraband drugs in specified quantities, and Section 29 deals with abetment and conspiracy related to NDPS violations. The court considered the nature of these charges in determining bail eligibility.
-
Budhiyarin Bai vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While offences under the NDPS Act are serious and warrant stringent punishment, courts must consider mitigating factors under Section 32B of the NDPS Act, including the personal circumstances of the accused such as age, illiteracy, rural background, lack of criminal history, and awareness of legal consequences, before imposing sentences higher than the minimum prescribed. The mere residence of an accused in a house where drugs are found, without clear evidence of active involvement in trafficking, may not justify the same level of punishment as those directly involved in the illegal trade, particularly when co-accused suppliers are acquitted.
On this section: Conviction of the appellant for joint possession of commercial quantity of cannabis (ganja) with knowledge. The court upheld this conviction but reduced the sentence considering personal circumstances.
-
Sagar vs Union Territory
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prisoner with an extensive criminal history involving multiple serious offences (dacoity, robbery, theft, forgery, and drug-related crimes) cannot be granted parole merely on the grounds of meeting family members or performing conjugal rights, particularly when the parole authority has reasonably determined that releasing such a prisoner would pose a potential danger to society.
On this section: Possession of narcotic drugs - FIR No. 68 of 2017 against petitioner
-
Ankit @ Aniket vs State of Odisha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted when the seized contraband falls within the 'intermediate quantity' category, favoring the grant of bail where the charge-sheet is filed.
On this section: Offence involving intermediate quantity of Ganja.
-
State of Tripura vs Uttam Kumar Paul
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In NDPS cases, the mere proximity of an accused to contraband in a public place, without clear evidence of ownership or control, is insufficient to establish conscious possession if contradicted by independent witnesses.
On this section: Punishment for possession of commercial quantity.
-
Chiluka Saidi Reddy vs The State of Telanagana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a bail application is filed after the charge sheet has been filed, even if the charge sheet was filed after expiry of the statutory period under Section 167 CrPC, the accused is not entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. The indefeasible right to statutory bail accrues only from the time of default (expiry of statutory period) till the filing of charge sheet and does not survive or remain enforceable once the charge sheet is filed. The test is whether as on the date of expiry of statutory period, a charge sheet has been filed before the concerned court, irrespective of whether cognizance has been taken. If the bail application is filed after the charge sheet is filed, the accused must meet the requirements under Section 37 of NDPS Act (or other applicable bail provisions) to obtain bail.
On this section: Substantive offence provision under which the petitioner was charged for possession of ganja.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… PARDIWALA, J. : 1. The captioned appeals are at the instance of a convict accused of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the NDPS Act") and are directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.08.2010 and the order of sentence dated 16.09.2010 resply passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1999 by which the …
-
… Cr. Appeal No.378 of 2008 21.7.2008 Present: Mr. Deepak Kaushal , counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ansul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Cr.MP No.388 of 2008 The applicant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months. He has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State …
Questions about Section 20
What have the courts held on Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
State of Kerala v. Rajesh (24 Jan 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Underlying offence was cannabis / s.20 commercial quantity; that is what triggered the s.37 overlay. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 12 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: NDPS Act 20, section 20 NDPS Act, section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. People searching for it also type ndps 20 b ii a and ndps 20 b in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Kerala v. Rajesh (24 Jan 2020).
When did Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act come into force?
Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cited as NDPS Act 20, came into force on 14 Nov 1985, having been enacted on 16 Sep 1985. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1747 words
- 68B. Definitions819 words
- 9. Power of Central Government to permit, control and regulate816 words
- 36A. Offences triable by Special Courts631 words
- 10. Power of State Government to permit, control and regulate568 words
- 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation507 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.