Mumbai man loses software job over Rs 2,000 ganja fine, moves Bombay High Court to clear record

A young data science professional from Mumbai has approached the Bombay High Court seeking removal of his name from the conviction register of Borivali police station. He says the conviction surfaced in a corporate background check and cost him his software engineering job.

The case concerns a Rs 2,000 fine imposed on a charge of consuming ganja. According to the petition, on December 30, 2023, the man, then 22, was with four friends at General Arun Kumar Vaidya Ground in Borivali West when plainclothes policemen approached them. He said he had not consumed any intoxicant, yet he was taken to Borivali police station, medically examined, and booked under Sections 8(c) and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

On March 5, 2024, he pleaded guilty before the 26th Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in Borivali and was fined Rs 2,000. His lawyer, Advocate Dinesh D Tiwari, said the man pleaded guilty to settle the matter quickly, on the advice of relatives and a lawyer, and did not fully understand the consequences.

According to the lawyer, the man got a job as a software engineer with a company in Navi Mumbai in March-April 2025. The following month, the conviction allegedly surfaced in a background check and he was dismissed. Tiwari said he now works as a data science trainer. He holds a BTech in mechanical engineering and a postgraduate diploma in big data analytics from C-DAC.

The criminal writ petition, filed under Article 226, has been moved through Dinesh D Tiwari and Associates, which includes Advocate Pulkeshi Gaikwad. It challenges the recording of convictions in minor drug cases under Rule 70 of Chapter III of the Bombay Police Manual, 1959. The petitioner argues that such an entry can leave a lifelong stain and makes reform difficult. His lawyer says the law should distinguish between minor consumption and drug trafficking.

The petitioner has sought three things from the High Court. First, that Rule 70 be interpreted so that it does not apply to cases under the NDPS Act that it describes as minor consumer offences. Second, that the authorities be directed to remove his name and details from the Borivali police station conviction register and related criminal records. Third, in the alternative, that he be given relief under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Advocate Dinesh D Tiwari said: "Entering the names of people booked for minor offences in the police station's conviction register is a wrong interpretation of the law. Second, the NDPS Act is a law that stresses reform, and Section 64A gives eligible first-time consumers a chance at rehabilitation. So a person who pleaded guilty in court on his own, out of misunderstanding and without weighing the pros and cons, is entitled to relief."

Advocate Prasannan Namboodiri, a former Narcotics Control Bureau officer, said: "It is unfortunate that a young man had to lose job opportunities only because his name was recorded in police records as a convict. Under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, an offender can avoid jail by paying a fine, but under Section 64A the most appropriate legal course is to come forward for rehabilitation and obtain immunity from prosecution. Everyone caught in such a situation should use the right to voluntary de-addiction and undergo rehabilitation, rather than settle the case in a summary trial and face long career obstacles."