Karnataka High Court
Abdul Jabbar @ Aseem Pasha vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40300
CRL.RP No. 1478 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1478 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. ABDUL JABBAR @ ASEEM PASHA
S/O APSAR PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.197, 5TH CROSS,
NEAR MAHAMADIAH MOSQUE,
SHANTHINAGAR, MYSURU.
2. THANVEER PASHA @ ADDA@THANNU
S/O AYUB PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO.374, 1ST MAIN,
SHANTHINAGAR, MYSURU.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.K. MAHADEVA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed by DEVARAJA SUB DIVISION,
GEETHAKUMARI MYSURU CITY - 570 019.
PARLATTAYA S REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: High HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Court of Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W
442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT
THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU IN SPL.C.NO.136/2024 VIDE ORDER
DTD 19.07.2025 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.6/2024 OF UDAYAGIRI
P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 20(b)(ii)(C) OF NDPS ACT, 1985 AND
ALLOW THE PETITION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40300
CRL.RP No. 1478 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 19.07.2025 passed by VII
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in
Spl.C.no.136/2024 rejecting discharge application filed by
petitioners/accused no.2 and 3 under Section 227 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('Cr.P.C', for short), this revision
petition is filed.
2. Sri R.K. Mahadeva, learned counsel for petitioners
submitted on an allegation that at 12:00 p.m. on 16.01.2024
petitioners no.2 and 3 was going on two wheeler in suspicious
manner and on seeing police, tried to escape, were chased
down and apprehended, 1kg of Ganja was seized on their
possession and on enquiry, they led them to godown of
accused no.1, wherein another 50kgs of Ganja was stored, they
were prosecuted for offence punishable under Section
20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985, ('NDPS Act', for short).
NC: 2025:KHC:40300
HC-KAR
3. It was submitted, after conclusion of investigation,
respondent filed charge-sheet on 13.03.2024. It was submitted
column no.17 of charge-sheet indicated seizure of 1kg of Ganga
Soppu including leaves, flowers, seed and stem from accused
nos.2 and 3, likewise, 56kg 700 grams of Ganja Soppu was
seized from godown belonging to accused no.1. It was
submitted, definition of Ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) would
indicate only flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant
(excluding seeds and leaves when not accompanied by tops
etc.) and as there was no separation of various parts of plaint,
ratio laid down by this Court in case of Kolandaiswamy S/o
late Arulappa v. State of Karnataka and Anr., reported in
2017 SCC OnLine KAR 275, would come into play and
prosecution could not be sustained.
4. In view of above, petitioners had filed application
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, for discharge. Though petitioners
had duly substantiated their case for discharge, under
impugned order, application filed by petitioners was rejected
without proper consideration. Relying upon decision of this
Court in Criminal Petition no.628/2017 disposed of on
NC: 2025:KHC:40300
HC-KAR
27.01.2017 (Kolandaiswamy v. State of Karnataka and Anr.)
and Criminal Petition no.11138/2024 disposed of on
29.04.2025 (Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka), which had
followed decision in Kolandaiswamy's case as well as referred
to various other judgments, learned counsel sought for allowing
revision petition, setting aside impugned order and allowing
application for discharge.
5. On other hand, Smt.N. Anitha Girish, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent though opposed
petition is unable to controvert position in law availing from
decision relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused
revision petition.
7. It is seen that application filed by petitioners under
Section 227 of Cr.P.C, is rejected merely on ground of
proceedings against accused no.1 having been quashed would
not be a ground of discharge for accused nos.2 and 3. Perusal
of application filed, reveals specific ground that material seized
was entire Ganja plant i.e. leaves, flowers, stems which would
NC: 2025:KHC:40300
HC-KAR
not answer description of Ganja as per provisions of NDPS Act
was taken. In view of fact that this Court in Criminal Petition
no.628/2017 disposed of on 27.01.2017 (Kolandaiswamy v.
State of Karnataka and Anr.) has allowed criminal petition and
quashed proceedings initiated against petitioners therein, on
similar contention and said decision has been followed by this
Court in Criminal Petition no.11138/2024, revision petition is
allowed.
Rejection of application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C
by VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in
Spl.C.no.136/2024 is set aside and proceedings against
petitioners are set at naught.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
