12 Ganja Plants On Another Man’s Land, House Plant Not Separately Weighed: Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against Man

The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, after police found one ganja plant in a pot in his garden and twelve plants in a backyard

The prosecution material indicated that the backyard belonged to Sri Vinod, who was not an accused, and the petitioner disputed any connection with the twelve plants

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in Spl. C. No. 5063/2023, relying on Alakh Ram v. State of U.P.; the State opposed the petition, including on the basis that the petitioner had conscious possession and that there was no fence separating his house from the backyard

Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act penalises prohibited cultivation of a cannabis plant, and Section 8(b) prohibits such cultivation

Relying on Alakh Ram v. State of U.P., (2004) 1 SCC 766, the Court applied the rule that the prosecution must prove that the accused cultivated the prohibited plants; the mere presence of plants on property is insufficient, and plants that have sprouted naturally do not, without more, establish cultivation

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

The Court found that the prosecution had not established the petitioner’s nexus to the twelve plants: they were found on land belonging to Sri Vinod, and the authorities had not specifically shown that the petitioner cultivated or possessed them

The Court also noted that the seizing authority had weighed the plants together rather than separately recording the weight of the single plant found in the petitioner’s garden and the twelve plants uprooted from the backyard

In the absence of proof connecting the petitioner to the twelve plants and of a separate weight for the single plant, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would be futile and an abuse of process