Holding

The conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act was set aside because the prosecution failed to prove that the accused cultivated the ganja plants.

Summary

The appellant Alakh Ram was charged under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act for allegedly planting ganja in his agricultural field. The police seized 17 ganja plants from the field and the trial court convicted him, imposing three years’ imprisonment, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved that the accused actually cultivated the prohibited plants. The Court held that the evidence did not establish cultivation: the sole witness did not see planting, there was no proof of exclusive ownership of the land, and the plants could have arisen naturally. Consequently, the conviction under Section 20 was unsustainable. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, cancelling the bail bonds. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the presence of cannabis plants on the accused’s property is sufficient to prove cultivation under Section 8(b) of the NDPS Act.
Whether the prosecution established the accused’s ownership or control over the land from which the plants were seized.
Whether the prosecution proved the element of cultivation required for conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 20, s. 8

Subjects

NDPS ActcultivationcannabisSection 8Section 20acquittalevidencenatural sproutingagricultural landcriminal appeal

Judgment

A ALAKH RAM
v.
STATE OF U.P.

JANUARY 8, 2004
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, /985:

C ss. 8 and 20-·f 7 ganja plants seized Ji-om agricultural field belonging
to accused-Accused prosecuted on the charge that he planted ganja plants
in his field-Conviction and 3 years imprisonment awarded by trial court-
Afjirmed by High Court-Held, in order to prove the guilt, it must be proved
that accused had cultivated the prohibited plants-There is no evidence that
there was cultivation ofGanja plants by accused-Having regard to the extent
D of the property and the number of plants recovered from that property, it
cannot be said that the said plants had been the result of cultivation-They
may have sprouted there by natural process and the accused or anybody who
is the owner of the property must not have been diligent in destroying them-
Accused not found guilty of offence uls 20-His conviction and sentence set
aside.
E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
36 of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.1.2003 of the Allahabad High
Court in Crl. A. No. 243 of 1994.
F
R.P. Gupta, Ms. Kamakshi and S. Mehlwal for the Appellant.

R.P. Mehrotra, R. Singh and Garvesh Kabra, for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
Leave granted.

The appellant Alakh Ram was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Jhansi for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the
I
NDPS Act. He was found guilty under Section 20 and was sentenced to
H 394
ALAKH RAM v. STATE OF U.P. 395
-...\" undergo three years imprisonment. He filed an appeal before the High Court A
and by the impugned Judgment, the High Court declined to interfere with the
conviction and sentence.

The case against the. appellant was that the he planted Ganja in his
Artieo field and on 9.6. I 992, the Station Officer Ravinder Kumar Mishra
with Constable. P.S. Katera visited the agricultural field belonging to the B
appellant and seized I 7 Ganja plants allegedly planted by the appellant. Two
witnesses were also present at the time of the recovery of these plants. All
the 17 plants were taken into custody and on chemical analysis, it was proved
that these plants were Ganja plants. The appellant on being questioned under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he had filed a criminal complaint against four
persons and the SDM had passed order in his favour and that when he went
c
to the police station to serve the order in his favour and that when he went
to the police station to serve the order passed by the SDM, he was falsely
implicated in the case.

We heard the appellant's Counsel and the Counsel for the respondent. D
Under Section 8(b) of the NDPS Act, cultivation of opium poppy or any
... cannabis plant is prohibited and under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, such
• cultivation of cannabis plant is made punishable with imprisonment and fine.
In order to prove the guilt, it must be proved that the accused had cultivated
this prohibited plant. There must be supporting evidence to prove that the
accused cultivated the plant and it is not enough that few plants were found E
in the property of the accused. It is quite reasonable to assume that sometimes
the plants may sprout up, if seeds happened to be embedded in earth due to
natural process. If plants are sprouted by natural growth, it cannot be said
that it amounts to cultivation.
F
.j In the instant case, one witness was examined to prove the nature of the
offence committed by the accused. It was PW I who accompanied the police
officers to the appellant's field. The evidence given by PW! is to the following
effect:-

"Alakh Ram is a farmer. I do not know the number of those G
fields. I do not know the number of that field in which Ganja were
sown. I do not know as to who had cultivated the plants of Ganja.
~, That field is irrigated and Madho also works in that field. Neither
have I seen anyone planting the Ganja plants nor do I know when
was it planted."
H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S.C.R.

A The above evidence is to be appreciated in the background of other
evidence on record. Appellant Alakh Ram, his father and brothers owned 70
bighas of land. The prosecution has not produced any document to show that
the property from which the Ganja plants were uprooted belonged to appellant
Alakh Ram exclusively. The witnesses who were examined in support of the
prosecution also have not given any evidence to show that this property
B belongs to appellant Alakh Ram. There is no satisfactory evidence either oral
or documentary to show that the appellant has a right over the prope11y from
which the Ganja plants were recovered. There is no evidence that the appellant
cultivated these Ganja plants. Having regard to the extent of the property and
the number of plants recovered from that the property, it cannot be said that
C these plants had been the result of cultivation. They may have been sprouted
there by natural process and the appellant or anybody who is the owner of
the property must not have been diligent in destroying the plants. Then: is no
evidence to prove that there was cultivation of Ganja plants by the appellant
and the Additional Sessions Judge wrongly convicted him as the evidence
adduced by the prosecution was not carefully scrutinized by the Court. The
D High Court committed error in confirming the conviction and sentence of the
appellant.

In the result, we find appellant Alakh Ram not guilty of the offence
under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. His conviction and sentence is set aside
E and his bail bonds would stand cancelled.

The appeal is allowed accordingly.

R.P. Appeal allowed.

\·