KAVERAPPA A M @ RASHI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58369
WP No. 31751 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676892025








IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 31751 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:


KAVERAPPA A.M @ RASHI,
S/O MANDANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEAR BCM HOSTEL,
1ST BLOCK, GONIKOPPA TOWN,
PONNAMPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT,
PIN - 571216.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.K. MAHADEVA, ADVOCATE)









AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
GONIKOPPA POLICE STATION,
GONIKOPPA CIRCLE, KODAGU DISTRICT,
PIN CODE - 571216.

2. THE POLICE OFFICER,
CHC 41, GONIKOPPA POLICE STATION,
GONIKOPPA CIRCLE, KODAGU DISTRICT,
PIN CODE - 571216.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP)

Digitally
signed by
CHETAN B C
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58369
WP No. 31751 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676892025



SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. C. NO 5063/2023 (IS ARISING
OUT OF CRIME NO. 143/2023) OF GONIKOPPA POLICE
STATION FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 20(A)(1) OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC
SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADIKERI
SITTING AT VIRAJPET, VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.R.K.Mahadeva, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondents.

2. Petitioner has filed the petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, with the following
prayers:
"a) To allow the petition and quash the entire
proceedings in Spl. C. No. 5063/2023 (is arising out of
Crime No. 143/2023) of Gonikoppa Police Station for the
alleged offence punishable under Section 20(a)(1) of

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58369
WP No. 31751 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676892025



Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
pending on the file of Hon'ble II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Madikeri Sitting at Virajpet, vide
Annexure-D;
b) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of
the case, in the interest of justice."
3. Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offence
punishable under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Charge sheet material
would reveal that one plant of ganja was found in a 'pot' in the
garden of the petitioner's house and twelve such plants were
grown in the backyard.

4. Even according to the prosecution, backyard did not
belong to petitioner and the said place belonged to Sri.Vinod.
Admittedly, Sri.Vinod is not an accused in the case. Twelve
such plants were grown with the other weeds in the land.


5. Therefore, it is the argument of the counsel for
petitioner that for the twelve plants which are grown in the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58369
WP No. 31751 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676892025



backyard, which land was belonging to Sri.Vinod, petitioner
cannot be held responsible inasmuch as he had no nexus with
those plants.

6. In that regard, learned counsel Sri.R.K.Mahadeva,
pursuant to the prayer in the petition, places reliance on the
principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
ALAKH RAM vs. STATE OF UP,
case of reported in (2004) 1
SCC 766 wherein it has been held as under:
" 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 happen 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.


- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58369
WP No. 31751 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676892025



5. In the instant case, one witness was examined to
prove the nature of the offence committed by the
accused. It was PW 1 who accompanied the police
officers to the appellant's field. The evidence given by
PW 1 is to the following effect:
“Alakh Ram is a farmer. I do not know the
number of those fields. I do not know the number
of that field in which ganja was sown. I do not
know as to who had cultivated the plants of
ganja. That field is irrigated and Madho also
works in that field. Neither have I seen anyone
planting the ganja plants nor do I know when was
it planted.”

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

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58369
WP No. 31751 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676892025



these plants had been the result of cultivation. They
may have 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
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. "

7. Per contra, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court
Government Pleader would submit that for one plant of ganja
that is found in the house of petitioner, no explanation is
forthcoming and petitioner had the conscious possession with
regard to the twelve plants which were grown in the backyard.

8. She would also contend that there was no
compound or fence between the house of the petitioner and the
place where the twelve plants of ganja was grown which
presupposes that it is the petitioner who had grown ganja in
the vacant space though belonging to Sri.Vinod, for his
utilization and to take advantage in the event of the crime

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58369
WP No. 31751 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676892025



being noticed by the concerned authority and therefore, charge
sheet cannot be quashed and matter needs to be tried.


9. In the light of rival contentions, this Court noted the
material on record meticulously.

10. On such noting of the material on record, seizing
authority had not separated root from the plant and weighed
the ganja plants in single lot. Seizing authorities were required
to weigh the single plant that was found in the garden in the
spot with the other flowering parts separately and thereafter,
should have weighed the twelve plants which were uprooted
from the backyard where it was grown.

11. Authorities have also not specifically stated that
petitioner had the nexus for the twelve plants which was seized
from the backyard, as admittedly the said land did not belong
to petitioner and it belonged to Sri.Vinod.


12. As such, eschewing the weight of twelve plants and
in the absence of a specific weight with regard to the single

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58369
WP No. 31751 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676892025



plant that was grown in the garden along with other flowering
parts of the house of the petitioner, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal case
would result in futile excise and abuse of process of law.

13. Accordingly, the following:
O R D E R
[I] Petition is allowed.
[II] Consequently, proceedings in SPL.C.No.5063/2023
(arising out of Crime No.143/2023) of Gonikoppa
Police Station, pending on the file of II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Madikeri, sitting at
Virajpet qua the petitioner stands quashed.





Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE



CBC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34