( 205 )
UKKU BANDA v. UKKU BANDA.
V. U», Kandy, 28,143.
(ianja—Ordinance No. 3 of 1899, s. 16—Land planted with cannabis indica.
Ganja is the flowering or fruit-beajjng tops of the female hemp plant.Possession of the plant itself is not an offence under section *16 of»theOrdinance No. 5 of 1899.j
HE accused was charged with possessing yanja in breach, 'ofsection 16 of Ordinance No. 5 of 1899.
It was proved that a land taien on lease by the accused wasplanted with ganja, plantain, cocoanut, and other trees; and that
( 206 )
1904. the accused was weeding the land at the time the complainantJune 7% Arachchi went to inspect it.
The Police Magistrate, Mr. F. Bowes, found the accused guiltyof possessing ganja and sentenced him to pay a fine of Bs. 30.
The accused appealed. The case was argued on 26th May, 1904.
Van Lancjenberg, for appellant.—In India, which is the homeof cannabisindica,there arefour forms ofit, called bhang,
charas, ganja, and majoon. Bhang consists of the dried leaf ofthe plant; charas is the resin exuded from the leaves andbranches; ganja means the flowering tops; and majoon is sweet-meat made of this drug. Locally, ganja was defined in OrdinanceNo.. '9 of 1897tomean thedried floweringtops of cultivated
female hemp plants which have become coated with resin inconsequenceofhaving beenunable to setseeds' freely, and
includes any substance containing ganja. But .that Ordinancewas repealed by No. 5 oi/l899, and the term “ganja” wasnot definedinit. In Damdawd v. Pakeer(1 Browne, 154),
Bonser, C.J., held there -must be special evidence that thesubstance found in the accused’s possession came within thedefinition of Ordinance No. 9 of 1897. There is no proof here ofwhat ganja is. In the “ Standard Dictionary ’’ and in “ Ogilvie’sDictionary ” the term “ ganja ” is defined specifically to be thedried hemp plant which has flowered and from which the resinhas not been removed.
Ramandthan, S.-O., for respondent, cited the article on bhangin the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Century Dictionary.
Cut. adv. vult.
7th June, 1904. Moncreiff, A.C.J.—t
The appellant was fined under the provision (No. 5 of 1899-section 16) which relates to the possessing, or selling, or offeringfor sale, or suffering or permitting to be sold, any bhang or ganja,or any substance containing bhang or ganja. He has planted somespecimens of cannabis indica and rpaintains that the provisionrelates only to ganja in its specific sense.
Under the word “ ganja ” jn the Century. Dictionary I find thefallowirfg: The .hemp plants of the north of India, specificallythe dried plant* which has flowered. In the Standard Dictionary,“ ganja ” or “ janja i^ said to be the hemp plant of India andPersia (cannabis sdtiva) dried with its flowers and gum. It isBmoked in pipes for its narcqtic effect. In the EncyclopediaBritannica under the word “ bhang ” I find “ an East Indian namefor the hemp plant cannabis sativa, but applied specially to the
( 207 )
leaves dried and prepared for use as a narcotic drug In 1904.
India the products of the plant for use as a narcotic and intoxicant?•
are recognized under the three names and forms of bhang ganja monckeivf,
or gunja, and churrus or charas Ganja is the flowering or A.C.J.
fruit-bearing tops of the female plants
I find also under the word “ hemp ” in the same publication thatbhang is said to be & the Hindustani Siddhi or Sabzi, consisting ofthe dried leaves and small stalks of the hemp ”, and ganja is saidto be ” the guaza of the London brokers, consisting of the flower-ing and fruiting heads of the female plant
In Ordinance No. 4 of 1878 there is no mention of ganja; theOrdinance deals with opium and bhang. In Ordinance No. 9 of1897, however, we find the words “ bhang or ganja The additionwas certainly not made with a view to including the plant, for thebhang plant and the ganja plant are the same—Indian hemp.
Moreover, scientific definitions were given in section 2 of the words“ bhang or ganja ” for the purposes of the Ordinance, bhang beingdefined as the dry leaves of hemp plants, Ac., and ganja as thedried flowering tops of the female plants, and as including anysubstance containing bhang or ganja. So the phrase ” bhang organja ” had no reference to the growing plant. The Ordinance of1897 was replaced by No. 5 of 1899, which also contains the words” bhang or ganja ”, without the addition of any words indicating anintention to include the plant. The words of section 7 of theOrdinance of 1897 were “ any person who shall possess or sell, oroffer for sale, or suffer to be sold, any bhang or ganja shall be guiltyof an offence ”.
They were practically the same as those of the Ordinance of1899 now in force, but the definitions have gone. Section 2 hasbeen sacrified, as I should suppose it was found hopeless to expectscientific knowledge in sergeants of police sufficient to work it.
As tea and tobacco are used to denote the tea and tobacco plants,so ganja is used to denote the hemp plant of India. But in a pro-vision of this description the words “ tea, tobacco, or ganja ”, wouldnaturally be taken to refer only to the specific article, unless thecontext showed an intention, to include the plant. I do not findaucji an' intention there. I therefore think that the conviction*should be set aside.
UKKU BANDA v. UKKU BANDA