The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ganesh Parte

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48073
1 CRA-5714-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
rd
ON THE 3 OF JULY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5714 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
GANESH PARTE
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey - Deputy Government Advocate for appellant/State.
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 378(III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment and order
of acquittal dated 30.12.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.08 of 2012 (State
of M.P. vs. Ganesh Parte) by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Seoni,
District Seoni (M.P.), whereby the learned trial Court acquitted
respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Sections 8(B)/20(a)(1)
of the NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 14.10.2012, Sub-Inspector
R.P. Rawat of Police Station Lakhnadon received secret information from an
informant that the respondent/accused Ganesh Parte had cultivated cannabis
plants and was storing cannabis in the maize field situated behind his house
in Village Dhauria. The said information was recorded in the Roznamcha
Sanha, where after two independent witnesses were summoned and a
Panchnama of the informant's information was prepared (Ex. P/26).
Thereafter, S.I., R.P. Rawat, accompanied by the police staff and Panch
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-07-2026
19:33:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48073
2 CRA-5714-2026
witnesses, proceeded to the spot and conducted a raid. Upon finding the

respondent/accused present at the spot, a consent Panchnama was prepared
after informing him of his legal rights. The respondent/accused first
conducted the search of the police party and the Panch witnesses. Thereafter,
the investigating officer searched the maize field allegedly belonging to and
in the possession of the respondent/accused, where nine cannabis plants were
found growing amidst the maize crop. The said plants were uprooted,
identified as cannabis and seized in accordance with law. During the course
of investigation, the respondent/accused was arrested and an intimation
under Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 was sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhnadon. Statements of
the witnesses were recorded, and Crime No. 349/2012 was registered at
Police Station Lakhnadon.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against
the respondent/accused before the competent Court. The learned trial Court
framed charges against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable
under Section 8(b) read with Section 20(a)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The charges were read over and
explained to the respondent/accused, who denied the same and claimed to be
tried. The defence of the respondent/accused is one of complete denial and
false implication.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as
many as 10 witnesses namely Patwari Suresh Sahu (PW-1), Head Constable
Jamna Prasad Baghel (PW-2), Constable Ramkumar (PW-3), Dilip
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-07-2026
19:33:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48073
3 CRA-5714-2026
Chourasiya (PW-4), Constable Ramlal Kumre (PW-5), S.D.M. Ku. Lata

Pathak (PW-6), Ramkumar Chandrawanshi (PW-7), Narendra Jain (PW-8),
S.D.O.P., P.S. Balre (PW-9) and Sub Inspector, R.P. Rawat (PW-10) and
placed Ex.P/1 to P/37, the documents on record.
5 . Learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties
acquitted the present respondents/accused persons. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State contends that
the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the
respondent/accused on the basis of the cogent and reliable testimony of the
prosecution witnesses including the independent witness Ramkumar
Chandrawanshi (PW-7) and the Investigating Officer, R.P. Rawat (PW-10),
who conducted the entire search and seizure proceedings at the spot. It is
further submitted that all the mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were duly complied with in their letter
and spirit during the course of search, seizure and the subsequent
investigation. Learned counsel further contends that the learned trial Court
adopted an unduly technical approach while appreciating the evidence on
record and, on that basis, erroneously extended the benefit of doubt to the
respondent/accused, resulting in an unwarranted order of acquittal. In such
circumstances, it is submitted that the findings and observations recorded by
the learned trial Court are perverse, erroneous and contrary to law.
Accordingly, prayer is made that the present appeal be allowed, the
impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the respondents/accused
persons be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-07-2026
19:33:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48073
4 CRA-5714-2026
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record

meticulously.
8. The independent witness cited by the prosecution namely Ramkumar
Chandrawanshi (PW-7) has not supported the prosecution case or the
proceedings relating to the preparation of the seizure and other documents
bearing his signatures. He has categorically deposed before the trial Court
that the police had merely obtained his signatures in his capacity as a
member of the Gram Suraksha Samiti and that no seizure or other
proceedings were conducted in his presence. The other seizure witness
namely Rewaram, has not been examined by the prosecution for reasons best
known to it. Furthermore, both the aforesaid witnesses cannot be regarded as
truly independent witnesses, as they are members of the Gram Suraksha
Samiti. The prosecution has failed to explain as to why no independent and
disinterested witness from the locality was associated with the seizure
proceedings. The prosecution could have associated the Sarpanch, Patel,
Kotwar or any other respectable resident of Village Dhuriya at the time of
the alleged seizure and other proceedings conducted on the spot. This
omission on the part of the prosecution assumes considerable significance in
the facts and circumstances of the present case and casts a doubt on the
credibility of the prosecution version.
9. Moreover, as is evident from Ex. P/31, Constable Ramkumar (PW-3)
was deputed at 15:30 hours to procure the presence of two witnesses and
within a span of merely 15 minutes i.e. at 15:45 hours, he returned along
with both of them. The prosecution has not explained how, within such a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-07-2026
19:33:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48073
5 CRA-5714-2026
short interval, the constable was able to locate, contact and bring both

witnesses to the spot. It has also failed to disclose the place from where the
said witnesses were secured. This unexplained circumstance assumes
significance and creates a doubt regarding the genuineness and transparency
of the proceedings allegedly conducted by the prosecution.
10. As far as the testimony of the police witnesses is concerned, Sub-
Inspector R.P. Rawat (PW-10) is the principal prosecution witness. A perusal
of the record reveals that Crime No. 349/2012 has been mentioned in the
spot map (Ex. P/21), seizure memo (Ex. P/22) and arrest memo (Ex. P/23),
although these documents were allegedly prepared prior to the registration of
the FIR (Ex. P/30). In such circumstances, the presence of the crime number
on documents purportedly prepared before the institution of the FIR gives
rise to a serious doubt regarding their genuineness and the manner in which
the investigation was conducted.
11. As regards the testimony of Narendra Jain (PW-8), who is stated to be a
Hamraha witness, it is noteworthy that his signatures do not appear on any of
the documents alleged to have been prepared at the spot. During his cross-
examination, he admitted that the seized contraband (Article-A) did not bear
the signature of the seizing officer, nor did it contain the signatures of any of
the witnesses. He further admitted that the packet containing Article-A was
not found to be completely sealed; rather, it was open from one side. This
circumstance creates a serious doubt as to whether the seized material was
deposited in the Malkhana of the concerned police station in a duly sealed
and intact condition. Further, the Malkhana Muddemal Register (Ex. P/5)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-07-2026
19:33:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48073
6 CRA-5714-2026
does not bear the signature of the officer who allegedly effected the seizure.

Likewise, the signature of the Malkhana Moharrir, Jamna Prasad Baghel
(PW-2), is also absent from the relevant entries in the register. Jamna Prasad
Baghel (PW-2) has further admitted that the sealed packet was not resealed
before it was deposited in the Malkhana of the police station. These
omissions and discrepancies materially affect the sanctity of the chain of
custody and cast a serious doubt on the integrity of the seized contraband
throughout its safe custody. Further, Ex. P/16, Ex. P/17, Ex. P/18 and Ex.
P/19 do not bear the signatures of the respondent/accused, thereby casting
doubt on the authenticity of the proceedings.
12. Patwari Suresh Sahu (PW-1) deposed that he prepared the spot maps
(Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2) and submitted the Khasra Panchshala (Ex. P/3).
However, he admitted that Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2 were not prepared on the
basis of the revenue records but at the instance of the witnesses.
Significantly, witness to the documents Rewaram has not been examined by
the prosecution, while Ramkumar Chandrawanshi (PW-7) has not supported
the prosecution case. Consequently, the genuineness of Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2
becomes doubtful. Suresh Sahu (PW-1) further admitted that the spot map
relates to the Baadi and not to the agricultural field. Admittedly, only nine
cannabis plants were seized and they were found growing amidst the maize
crop. There is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent/accused had
undertaken systematic cultivation of cannabis. Mere recovery of nine stray
cannabis plants from a maize field, without any evidence of conscious and
deliberate cultivation, is insufficient to establish the offence of cultivation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-07-2026
19:33:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48073
7 CRA-5714-2026
under the NDPS Act.

13. There is nothing on record to suggest that the present case is not one of
spontaneous or wild growth of cannabis. No evidence has been adduced to
show that the respondent/accused was consciously cultivating the field or
deliberately growing cannabis plants. Admittedly, only nine cannabis plants
were seized and the possibility of their wild or natural growth cannot be
ruled out. In this backdrop, the recovery of a few cannabis plants, by itself, is
insufficient to establish conscious cultivation. Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act
relates to the cultivation of cannabis. To establish the offence, the
prosecution must prove by cogent and reliable evidence that the accused was
engaged in or responsible for such cultivation. Mere recovery of cannabis,
without proof of its cultivation by the accused, is insufficient to attract the
said provision. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Nanda
Sakhaji Mal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 ILR (MP) 589 has held as
under:-
"(5) ON account of the omission of Sunil Yadav (P. W. 4) to make
a spot map or to produce the photographs, even if it is assumed
that it was the field of the accused of which he was Bhumiswami
and in possession, the question arises whether the Cannabis was
cultivated by the accused. It is also not clear whether the Plants
which were found were scattered or were in a row or in a bed so as
give any indication that the Cannabis were grown by the accused.
There is also nothing to suggest that it was not a case of
spontaneous growth. There is also no evidence to suggest that
anybody had noticed that the accused was cultivating the field and
growing cannabis.
(6.) THE learned Sessions Judge has referred to the testimony of
Sunil yadav (P. W. 4) Rameshwar (P. W. 1) and Rameshchandra
(P. W. 5) with regard to the ownership and possession of the
accused of the field concerned. Patwari madanlal (P. W. 2) has
also been examined but Rameshwar and Rameshchandra have not
supported the prosecution. It is, therefore, clear that even on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-07-2026
19:33:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48073
8 CRA-5714-2026
finding arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge with regard to the
ownership and possession of the field, the quantity of Plants being
only 90, and there being no evidence that they were systematically
grown in the absence of spot map and the photographs, it is not
unlikely that while the field had the Maize Plants, there may have
been wild growth of the Cannabis. It is otherwise not
comprehensible that if the accused wanted to grow Cannabis, he
would confine the growth only to 90 Plants.

14. This Court in the case of Chhotelal Lodh vs. State of M.P., 2012 1
MPHT 512 has held as under:-
"10. On appraisal of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, it
transpires that there is no cogent and convincing evidence that
appellant was in possession of the land in which cannabis plants
were found growing. None of the independent witnesses said that
the filed in which the plants were detected belonged to appellant or
was in his possession. Even Head Master C.P. Yadav (P.W.5) did
not say that he knew that the said bagiya was in possession of the
appellant. According to him, when he reached the field on being
called by the police officer, appellant was also called. Patwari
(P.W.7) stated that the said field was recorded in the name of
Rameshwar, but it was in possession of the appellant. He,
however, in cross-examination, admitted that there was nothing in
the record to show that appellant was in possession of the said
field. He stated merely on the basis of statements made by other
witnesses. However, he did not record any such statement in the
Panchnama drawn by him. In these circumstances, the evidence
about the fact that the field in which the plants were found
growing was in possession of appellant, does not appear
trustworthy. In my opinion, it was not established beyond doubt
that the field belonged to appellant or he was in possession of the
field from which the cannabis plants were seized. Apart from it, it
is also to be noted that if only 2-3 plants of cannabis were found
growing in an open field along with other vegetable plants, it
cannot be presumed and held that the said plants were being
cultivated. For holding a person cultivator of plants, it has to be
established that he deliberately developed and maintained the
plants by cultivation using agricultural techniques or he prepared
the land or soil for growing such crops. In the absence of such
evidence, it cannot be held that cannabis plants were being
cultivated. Mere growing of stray cannabis plants in the field midst
of number of other plants will not amount to cultivation of the said
plants."
15. Survey No. 90 is jointly recorded in the names of three Bhumi Swamis
namely Sevaram, Ganesh and Jamni. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-07-2026
19:33:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48073
9 CRA-5714-2026
said land was in the exclusive possession of the respondent/accused. Further,

R.P. Rawat (PW-10) has deposed that the nine cannabis plants were found on
only 0.03 R.A. of land comprised in Survey No.90; however, no
investigation was conducted to ascertain in whose possession or occupation
the said portion of land actually was. In the absence of any cogent evidence
establishing the respondent's/accused exclusive possession over the specific
portion of land from which the cannabis plants were seized, the prosecution
has failed to prove this essential fact beyond reasonable doubt.
16. In the overall conspectus of the factual matrix, as discussed
hereinabove, the view taken by the learned Trial Court appears to be both
plausible and legally sustainable. The findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence available on record
and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity
warranting interference by the appellate Court. It is well-settled that an
appellate Court ought not to interfere with an order of acquittal unless the
findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, manifestly erroneous or
wholly unreasonable.
17. In H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under
Section 378 of CrPC as follows:
“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal,
is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3 . The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-07-2026
19:33:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48073
10 CRA-5714-2026
whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which
could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot
overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was
also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal
only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be
recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt
of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible.”

(Emphasis Supplied)
18. In Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024
SCC Online SC 561, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to relevant
precedents, has observed as follows:-
“39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to
be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider
material evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view
consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the
evidence available on record.
40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of
acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above
factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal
rendered by the trial Court.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3
SCC 544, the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the principles while
deciding the appeal against acquittal which are as follows :-
"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be
summarised as :

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-07-2026
19:33:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48073
11 CRA-5714-2026
and such appreciation must be comprehensive — inclusive of all
evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a
miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two
views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere
possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of
acquittal;

(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in
appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address
all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover
all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate
court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or
fact in the decision of the trial court."...
20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the ratio of law laid down

by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases, on careful analysis of the
evidence, the observations made by the learned trial Court in the impugned
judgment are not found to be faulty. The learned trial Court on proper
appreciation of evidence available on record has rightly acquitted the
respondent/accused. There is no ground for interference with the findings of
the trial Court.
2 1 . Ex. consequenti, while affirming the findings of acquittal of present
respondents by the learned trial Court, the appeal being bereft of merit is
hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-07-2026
19:33:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48073
12 CRA-5714-2026


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-07-2026
19:33:52