1 2026:CGHC:1889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 723 of 2005 Purno Ram S/o Jamuna Ram Yadav, aged about 55 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Mudapara [Mahakul Para], Thana Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (CG) ... Appellant. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer Pathalgaon, Jashpur (CG) ... Respondent. {Cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery} For Appellant : Ms. Ananya Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mrs. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 13.01.2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity the "CrPC") against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2005 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Jashpur, District Jashpur (henceforth referred to as the "Special Court") in Special Criminal Case No.01/2005, whereby learned Special Judge, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.01.16 10:55:01 +0530 2 Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the "NDPS Act") RI for 1 year Rs.3000/- RI for 3 years 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.11.2003, Sub-Inspector R.P. Singh (PW-3) posted at Police Station Pathalgaon, at the relevant time, received information from an informant that the present appellant has cultivated cannabis plants in his garden (Baadi). The said information was reduced in writing by him and same was registered in Roznamcha Sanha vide Ex.P-9. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer (PW-3) rushed to the spot i.e. house of the appellant at Village Mudpara (Mahakul Para) and seized 9 plants from the possession of the appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P-1 dated 01-11-2003 at 12 noon before two independent witnesses, namely, Manohar Lal Gupta (PW-1) and one Ramsundar. On being examined, the said plants were found to be cannabis plants. Subsequently, Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-2. Spot Map was prepared by Police officials of Pathalgaon as well as by Patwari vide Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5, respectively. On the same day, the said information was sent to Sub Divisional Officer Pathalgaon vide Ex.P-13 by Sub Inspector (PW-3). The appellant was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.P-3. True copy of relevant Khasra Panchshala showing Abadi land/ Government land bearing Khasra No.706/1[k/1 admeasuring area 2.015 hectares was obtained from Sambhunath Rathiya, Patwari (PW-2) vide Ex.P-8. Subsequently, FIR was lodged against the appellant vide Ex.P-12 3 by Sub Inspector (PW-3) for the offence under Section 20 & 22 of the NDPS Act. Afterwards, seized cannabis plants were sent for examination to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P-15 and deposit receipt has been filed in this regard vide Ex.P-16. However, the FSL report has not been received by the prosecution, therefore, the same has not been filed. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant for the offence under Sections 20 & 22 of the NDPS Act before the Special Court Jashpur. 4. Learned Special Judge has framed charge under Section 8(b) read with Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act against the appellant and same was explained to him, who abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove the guilt of appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses, namely, Manohar Lal Gupta (PW-1), Sambhunath Rathiya (PW-2), Sub Inspector R.P. Singh (PW-3), Shri Ram Singar (PW- 4), Head Constable James Kujur (PW-5) and Ramesh Sharma (PW-6). The prosecution has exhibited total 17 documents viz Ex.P-1 to P-17. 6. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded, in which, he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and claimed himself to be innocent. Although, he has not examined any witness in his defence, however, in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC he has stated that Manohar Lal Gupta (PW-1) has implicated him because of personal enmity. 7. After appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned Special Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as 4 mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, which has been assailed by appellant in instant appeal. 8. Ms. Ananya Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, according to the prosecution, the appellant has allegedly cultivated 9 cannabis plants in his garden (Baadi), but neither in the FIR nor in other documents it has been mentioned that what is Khasra number of the land from which alleged cannabis plants were recovered. She further submits that in Khasra Panchshala (Ex.P-8) Khasra number of the land is said to be '706/1[k/1 area 2.015 hectares', but the said land is Abadi/Government land and it has not been proved by the prosecution that the land from which alleged cannabis plants were recovered was owned or possessed by the appellant exclusively. She also submits that the prosecution has also failed to prove that alleged seized plants were cannabis or not, as FSL report was not received by the prosecution. She further submits that, even otherwise, if it is assumed that said plants were recovered from the land/possession of the appellant, despite that, prosecution is obliged to prove the fact that said plants were cultivated by the accused/appellant as multiple people were residing in the said village. She submits that without proving the said facts, only on the basis of recovery of the plants from the possession or area of the appellant, he cannot be held to be guilty for the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act. In support of her contention, she places reliance in the case of Alakh Ram Vs. State of U.P. {(2004) 1 SCC 766:2004 SCC OnLine 52}. Hence, she prays that the appeal may 5 be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charge by setting aside the impugned judgment. 9. On the contrary, Mrs. Prabha Sharma, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and submits that the impugned judgment is based on well appreciation of evidence, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and went through the record of the case including the record of the Special Court with utmost circumspection. 11. Among the six witnesses produced by the prosecution, Sub Inspector R.P. Singh (PW-3) is the Investigating Officer who alleged to have seized 9 cannabis plants. According to his deposition, he has seized 9 cannabis plants from the garden (Baadi) of the accused/appellant on 01.11.2003 on the basis of information given by the informer. This witness has further stated that the appellant had cultivated 9 cannabis plants in his garden (Baadi), out of which, he (PW-3) has seized 8 cannabis plants having length of 6 ft and also seized one cannabis plant which was left to dry on the rooftop of the house of the appellant. He has seized the said plants vide seizure memo Ex.P-1. The statement of seizure memo was supported by Manohar Lal Gupta (PW-1) who was the first witness to seizure memo (Ex.P-1). Ram Sundar was the second witness to seizure memo (Ex.P-2), however, he has not been examined by the prosecution during trial. 12. Further, though Sambhunath Rathiya, Patwari (PW-2) has filed true copy of Khasra Panchshala (Ex.P-8), according to which, Khasra 6 No.706/1[k/1 admeasuring area 2.015 hectares is Aabai/Government Land, however, from perusal of evidence of the prosecution, none of the witnesses have stated in their statement as to what is actual Khasra number and area of garden (Baadi) of the appellant. 13. Apart from the above, Sambhunath Rathiya, Patwari (PW-2) has also prepared Nazari Naksha vide Ex.P-4, in which, he has mentioned that the area shown in Point No.1 is house and garden (Baadi) of the appellant where alleged cannabis plants were cultivated. However, it has not been proved by him or the prosecution witnesses that what was the actual revenue number of the land from which alleged cannabis plants were recovered and it has also not been proved that the said land was in exclusive possession of the appellant. 14. In the present case, in every proceeding during investigation Manohar Lal Gupta (PW-1) has been named as an independent witness, whereas the appellant in the statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC has stated that he (Manohar Lal Gupta) has implicated him in the instant case because of personal grudge between them. In such a situation, in absence of any reliable revenue document, it cannot be held that the said land from where alleged cannabis plants were seized was in exclusive possession of the appellant. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Alakh Ram (Supra) while considering similarly situated circumstances, held that it must be proved that the accused had cultivated the prohibited plant voluntarily and in substantial quantity and also held that plant sprouted by natural growth 7 do not amount to cultivation. This Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Para 4 and 6 of the aforesaid judgment which read thus:- "4. We heard the appellant's Counsel and the Counsel for the respondent. 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 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. *** *** *** 6. 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 belongs to appellant Alakh Ram. There is no satisfactory evidence either oral or documentary to show that the appellant has a right over the property 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 property, it cannot be said that 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. There is no evidence to prove that there was cultivation of Ganja plants by the appellant and the Additional 8 Sessions Judge wrongly convicted him as the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not carefully scrutinized by the Court. The High Court committed error in confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant." 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the facts of the present case are considered, it appears that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that land in which alleged cannabis were planted was exclusively owned or possessed by the appellant. Further, the prosecution has also failed to establish that the plants were solely and exclusively cultivated by the appellant, as in the said village many people were residing. Therefore, even if this Court assumes that the said land belongs to the appellant, despite that, in absence of cogent evidence with regard to cultivation of plants by the appellant, he cannot be held guilty for the aforesaid offence. 17. Moreover, although in the present case alleged 9 plants were being tested by the police official and on rubbing and smelling same were found to be cannabis, but only on the basis of such identification it cannot be held that said cannabis plants were exclusively cultivated by the appellant. Furthermore, the alleged cannabis plants were also sent for examination to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P-15 and in this regard deposit receipt has been filed vide Ex.P- 16, however, no FSL report or other evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove that said plants were cannabis plants. 18. In view of the discussion made herein-above, this Court reaches to the conclusion that learned Special Court has committed grave error while 9 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act and the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of vague and unreliable evidence produced by the prosecution. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be quashed. 19. For the foregoing, I do not feel inclined to upheld the judgment passed by learned Special Court. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2005 passed by the Special Judge convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act is quashed/set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 20. The appellant/accused is reported to be on bail. He needs not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant/accused shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 21. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. 22. Record of the concerned Special Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay