State Of Chhattisgarh vs Umend Das
2022 Latest Caselaw 4769 Chatt

                                   1

                                                                 NAFR


      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       CRMP No. 197 of 2018
    State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Dongargarh,
     Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
                                                        ---- Petitioner
                                 Versus
    Umend Das S/o Pardeshiram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o
     Village Purana Achholi, Police Station Dongargarh Distt.
     Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
                                                      ---- Respondent

For Petitioner/State : Mr. Ali Asgar, Dy. A.G.

For Respondent               :         Mr. Anurag Khatri, Adv.



               Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
                          Order on Board
26/07/2022


   1. Heard on admission.

2. The instant petition is filed against the judgment of acquittal

dated 01.07.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge

(N.D.P.S. Act), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Case No.

04/2014 whereas the respondent has been acquitted of the

charges punishable under Section 20(A) of the NDPS, Act.

3. Learned State counsel submits that in the present case the

learned Special Judge is absolutely unjustified in acquitting

the respondent as the contraband/cannabis plants were

seized from the field of the respondent and after compliance

of all formalities it was sent to the Forensic Science

Laboratory, wherein it was found that the same was narcotic

drugs. As such on the basis of the statement of the

Investigating Officer - S.S. Patel (PW-8) the conclusion ought

to have been recorded by learned trial Judge and further he

has failed to appreciate the provisions of NDPS Act, which is

available against the respondent, therefore, the impugned

judgment of acquittal of the respondent recorded by the

learned Special Judge deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the case

of NDPS it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that those

cannabis plants were planted by the respondent herein and

the cannabis plants were not sprouted naturally. He has

placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Alakhram Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2004) 1

SCC 766, the Apex Court has observed as under :

"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 7 cri. appeal 194.03 reasonable to assume that sometimes the plants may sprout up, if seeds happen to be embedded in earth due to natural process. It plants are sprouted by natural growth, it cannot be said that it amounts to cultivation."

5. In the instant case the prosecution has failed to prove the

fact that the respondent is owner of the said field from where

the cannabis plants were seized, therefore, the petition is

liable to be dismissed at motion stage.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties, considered their

rival submissions and perused the material available on

record.

7. In the instant case the respondent was prosecuted for the

offence punishable under Section 20 (A) of NDPS, Act, as

three plants of cannabis were seized from the field and it is

alleged that respondent is the owner of the said field. In order

to constitute offence punishable under Section 20(A) of NDPS,

Act, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused

person has actually cultivated the prohibited plant and it

must further be proved that the land on which the cannabis

plants were cultivated has been exclusively held by the

accused person and he had right over it.

8. The learned trial Court in para 49 has rightly observed this

fact that prosecution did not file any document in this regard

that the respondent is exclusive owner of the said field. It is

the case of prosecution that three plants of cannabis were

seized from the possession of the respondent but the

prosecution has failed to plead and establish that the field

where the cannabis plants were planted it in the exclusive

possession of the respondent and he had exclusively right

over the said land from where the plants were recovered.

There is no evidence on record at all to show that the

cannabis plants were cultivated by the respondent, and the

independent witnesses have also not supported the seizure of

the plant.

9. Looking to the quantity of cannabis, prosecution is duty

bound to prove this fact that the said cannabis plants did not

sprout out by natural process. The learned trial Judge has

rightly acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable

under Section 20(A) of NDPS, Act, I do not find any perversity

or illegality in the acquittal order of the trial Court, therefore,

the petition is liable to be and is dismissed at motion stage

itself.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

H.L. Sahu