Cannabis plants on a property alone cannot establish the accused’s cultivation.

On 21 August 2004, police acted on recorded secret information and found 425 cannabis plants growing in a backyard where maize was also cultivated.

The plants were seized, samples were sent for forensic examination, and the report identified them as cannabis.

The trial court convicted Chhattar Singh under Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act, finding that he had cultivated the plants in the backyard of his house.

In appeal, he disputed that he cultivated the plants or exclusively possessed the land.

The Patwari’s evidence identified Sukhram, the appellant’s father, as the recorded owner of the land; prosecution witnesses also acknowledged uncertainty about ownership and the absence of a partition.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant cultivated the cannabis plants, establishing a contravention of Section 8 punishable under Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act.

Section 8(b) of the NDPS Act prohibits cultivation of a cannabis plant, and Section 20(a)(i) makes such cultivation punishable.

“Cultivation” encompasses the conscious act of planting, tilling, raising, growing, farming or gardening a cannabis plant.

Under *Alakh Ram v. State of U.P.*, (2004) 1 SCC 766, the prosecution must prove that the accused cultivated the prohibited plant; finding plants on property associated with the accused is not, by itself, sufficient, since plants may grow naturally.

The prosecution must establish the foundational facts before a presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act may be invoked.

The evidence established that cannabis plants were present, but did not reliably establish that the appellant cultivated them.

The Kotwar did not say that the appellant had cultivated the plants; an independent witness did not know who owned the backyard; and the Patwari’s evidence showed that the land was recorded in the name of the appellant’s father.

The Investigating Officer had not recorded in the case diary the information allegedly obtained from Holsai implicating the appellant, and Holsai was not called as a witness.

Applying *Alakh Ram*, the Court held that the plants’ presence and the alleged association of the land with the appellant did not prove cultivation beyond reasonable doubt; the prosecution had also failed to establish the foundational facts for a Section 54 presumption.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence dated 28 January 2005, and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act.

As the appellant was on bail, his bail bonds were directed to continue for six months under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.