102-NLR-NLR-V-54-D.-F.-S.-WEERASOORIYA-Appellant-and-EXCISE-INSPECTOR-MULLAITVU-Respondent.pdf
4110SWAN—Weeraaooriya v. Excise inspector, lYluiiaitivu
1952
Present : Swan J.
F. S. WEERASOORIYA, Appellant, and EXCISE INSPECTOR,MULLAITIVU, Respondent
8. G. 863— M. C. Vavuniya, 24,912
Oanja—Is not a plant—Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Gap. 172),88. 25, 26, 28.
Ganja is not a plant but a preparation or extract from a plant. It does nottherefore, come ■within the definition of hemp plant the possession of whichis punishable under section 26 of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous DrugsOrdinance.
Samarasekera v. Soysa (1951) 52 N. L. R. 380, followed.
Wilson v. Kotalawela (1946) 47 N. L. R. 45, not followed.
.^^.PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Vavuniya.
T.K. Curtis, with P. Somatilakam, for the accused appellant.
A. Mah endra raj ah, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 10, 1952. Swan J.—
The appellant was charged with possession withotit a licence of “ seeds,pods, leaves, flowers or other parts of the hemp plant commonly knownas ganja weighing 9 ozs. -314 grains ” in breach of section 26 read withsections 2 (2) and 76 (1)a of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous DrugsOrdinance (Cap. 172 N. L. E.). The evidence of the prosecuting Inspectorwas that he found 9 ozs. and 314 grains of ganja in the person of theaccused. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentencedhim to pay a fine of Rs. 200.
Ariyaralne v. Da Silva
431
It is time that the Excise Authorities realized that the hemp plant asdefined in section 25 means the plant commonly known as “ CannabisSativa h " and that the word ganja, as will be seen from section 28,refers to a preparation or extract from the hemp plant. I shall quotethe relevant portion of that section :—
“ Any resin obtained from the hemp plant, or the preparations of orextracts from the hemp plant, commonly known as bhang, hashish organja, or any other preparation of which such resin forms a part. ”
In the case of SamaraseJcera v. Soysa 1 Basnayake J. pointed out thatganja was not a plant but a preparation or extract from’a plant, and statedthat he was unable to subscribe to the view that “ ganja ” came withinthe definition of hemp plant in the Ordinance, as was held by Jayetileke J.in Wilson v. Kotalawela2. With the view of Basnayake J. in Samara-sekera v. Soysa 1 I entirely agree.
It is clear therefore that the charge was in respect of possession of partsof the hemp plant, and the evidence of the possession of ganja. Inthese circumstances Mr. Somatilakam who argued the case for theappellant wants me to quash the conviction and acquit the accused.Learned Crown Counsel, however, wants me to alter the conviction toa conviction under section 28. That, I think, w’ould not be fair to theaccused. I would therefore quash the conviction and order a retrialupon a proper charge.„
Conviction quashed.