A Few Ganja Plants on Family Land Do Not Prove Cultivation: Supreme Court Sets Aside NDPS Conviction

On 9.6.1992 the police visited an agricultural field said to belong to the appellant and seized 17 ganja plants, alleging that he had planted them; chemical analysis confirmed they were ganja (para 3). The Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi convicted him under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment, and the Allahabad High Court declined to interfere (para 2). In his Section 313 statement he said he had been falsely implicated after he went to the police station to serve an order passed in his favour by the SDM (para 3).

Section 8(b) prohibits the cultivation of any cannabis plant and Section 20 makes such cultivation punishable, so the prosecution must prove that the accused cultivated the plant (para 4). There must be supporting evidence of cultivation; it is not enough that a few plants were found on the accused's property, because plants may sprout if seeds are embedded in the earth by natural process, and natural growth does not amount to cultivation (para 4). Only one witness spoke to the offence, and he did not know which field it was or who had cultivated the plants (para 5). The appellant, his father and brothers owned 70 bighas of land, and no document or witness showed that the field belonged to the appellant exclusively or that he had a right over it (para 6). Given the extent of the land and the number of plants, they could not be said to be the result of cultivation; they may have sprouted naturally and the owner may simply not have destroyed them (para 6). The trial court had not scrutinised the evidence carefully, and the High Court erred in confirming the conviction (para 6).