- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6210 CRL.A No. 777 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.777 OF 2019 (C) BETWEEN: HUCHCHAPPA S/O THIMMADASA AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O CHIKKAMATTUR VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 573401 (IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRASAD B S.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAGAR RURAL POLICE STATION, SAGAR AND ALOS REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSEUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP.) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 15/16.04.2019 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA IN SPL.(NDPS).CASE. NO.65/2018 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(b) R/W 20(b)(ii)(C) OF NDPS ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6210 CRL.A No. 777 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 15th April, 2019 passed in Special (NDPS) Case No.65 of 2018 by The Special Judge, Shivamogga. (for short "the trial Court"). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their status before the trial court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Sub- Inspector of Rural Police Station, Sagar submitted charge-sheet against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 8(b) and 20(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act"). It is alleged by the prosecution that on 24th November, 2016 at 2:30 pm the Additional SP called him and informed that in survey No.107 of Chikkamattur, which is a Forest land, Huchhappa S/o Thimmadasa had grown Ganja amidst Ginger and Paddy crops and directed the complainant to conduct raid. After receipt of information, complainant reduced the same into writing and secured the presence of his staff, and left to Chikkamattur. There, they secured the presence of two - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6210 CRL.A No. 777 of 2019 persons as Panchas. Then they came to land of Huchhappa. They saw a person working in the middle of the land and after seeing the complainant, he tried to escape. He was caught hold by them. Upon search, they found cannabis plants grown in between Ginger crop by the said Huchhappa. He had no valid license or permit to grow the same. The land is a bagarhukum land. Thereafter, nine Ganja plants of 3 feet height were uprooted, which were weighing 29 kgs worth Rs.87,000/-. The accused has committed aforesaid offences. 4. After taking cognizance, a case was registered and accused was released on bail. After registering the case, the trial court heard on charges and framed charges on 9th October, 2018. Thereafter, altered Charge was framed on 3rd April 2019. The same were read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined four witnesses as PWs1 to 4, eight documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P8 and one sample Ganja packet was marked as MO1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6210 CRL.A No. 777 of 2019 recorded. Accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 8(b) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine offer ₹20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence is contrary to law, evidence and probability of the case. The trial court has committed serious error in holding that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The investigating officer has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act. The learned Judge has committed serious error in relying on the evidence of PWs1, 3 and 4, who are police officials and are interested witnesses and further their evidence - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6210 CRL.A No. 777 of 2019 is not corroborated by any independent evidence. The appellant is not the owner of the land. The prosecution has produced Exhibit P7-RTC, which clearly shows that the appellant is not the owner of the land. Prosecution has deliberately not produced any independent witnesses though available, rendering their case doubtful. The trial court has not properly appreciated the material on record in accordance with law and facts and accordingly, sought for allowing the appeal. 6. As against this, Sri Diwakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and submits that the trial court has appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and there no ground is made out for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of materials on record, the following points would arise for my consideration: "1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6210 CRL.A No. 777 of 2019 unauthorized cultivator of land bearing survey No.107 of Chikkamattur, Sagar Taluk has grown Ganja plants between ginger and Paddy crops? 2. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 8(b) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act?" Regarding Point No.1: 8. I have gone through the evidence and materials placed before the court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24th November, 2016, when the complainant and his staff raided the bagarhukum land in survey No.107 of Chikkamattur, Sagar Taluk, they found ganja plants grown in the middle of ginger and paddy crops. To substantiate the same, the prosecution has produced RTC-Exhibit P7, which reveals that survey No.107 of Chikkamattur of Sagar Taluk stand in the name of Sharada w/o Seenappa, measuring 16 Guntas and the remaining land is shown as Chikkamatturu Reserve Forest. The name of the cultivators in column 12 of RTC are as below: "Prabhakara - Sanjiva; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6210 CRL.A No. 777 of 2019 Raju - Sanjiva; Shekara - Sanjiva; Ratna - Ramappa; Sheenappa - Bachha; Sharada - Sheenappa; Kaanu; K.P.C. Ltd; Kannappa - Manjanaika; Hanumanthappa - Hobalappa; Shekharappa - Bachha" 9. The investigating officer, who is examined as PW1 has deposed that survey No.107 is a forest land and there are several farmers who are cultivating this land. Exhibit P7 does not reveal the name of the accused. The investigating officer has not produced any evidence to show that the accused had grown Ganja plants in Survey No.107 of Chikkamattur. The investigating officer has not explained anything as to non- mentioning of the name of the accused in the RTC extract. The investigating officer has not deposed anything as to the contents of Exhibit P7-RTC extract which has got presumptive value under Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The investigating officer has not placed any rebuttal evidence to the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6210 CRL.A No. 777 of 2019 statutory presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In absence of these materials, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the accused has grown 9 ganja plants amidst ginger and paddy crops in the land in Survey No.107 of Chikkamattur, Sagar Taluk. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the negative. Regarding Point No.2: 10. When the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had grown ganja plants in between ginger and paddy crops in survey No.107 of Chikkamattur, Sagar Taluk, the question of committing offence under Section 8(b) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS act does not arise. The trial court has not properly appreciated the material on record in accordance with law and convicted the accused without any cogent, corroborative or legal evidence before it. Accordingly, point No.2 is also answered in the negative. 11. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6210 CRL.A No. 777 of 2019 O R D E R i) Appeal is allowed; ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 15th April 2019, passed in Special (NDPS) Case No.65 of 2018 by the Special Judge, Shivamogga, is set aside; iii) Accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 8(b) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act; iv) The trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount if any deposited by the appellant in accordance with law. Registry to send the copy of this judgment along with trial court records to the concerned court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46