Failure to prove the accused cultivated cannabis plants warrants acquittal under the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that, on 13 October 2015, the appellants had cultivated 70 cannabis plants on forest land in Survey No. 10 of Dobylu Maskani village.

Police uprooted and seized the plants; Accused No. 1 was arrested at the spot.

The Special Judge convicted both appellants under Section 20(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced each to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

They appealed against the conviction and sentence.

The High Court noted discrepancies in the land-survey references and that the revenue record showed the land as forest land, with no crop recorded.

Whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently established that the appellants cultivated the cannabis plants on the land in question, warranting their conviction under Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act.

Whether the alleged non-compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act provided an additional ground to interfere with the conviction.

Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act concerns, among other acts, the illicit cultivation of cannabis plants; the prosecution must prove the accused’s commission of the alleged offence with cogent and reliable evidence.

Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act gives rise to a presumption concerning entries in revenue records.

The court also referred to Sections 42, 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act as mandatory provisions with which the investigating officer had not complied.

The High Court found that the prosecution had not satisfactorily established that the appellants cultivated the plants on the identified land.

The revenue entry described the land as forest land, recorded “aranya” as the cultivator and showed “no crop”; the Village Accountant did not explain the absence of any entry concerning the alleged cannabis plants.

The prosecution also failed to reconcile the references to Survey No. 10 and Survey No. 10/3 or to produce the relevant RTC extract for Survey No. 10.

In the absence of cogent evidence linking the appellants to the alleged cultivation, the court held that the conviction could not stand; it additionally noted non-compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act.

It set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted both appellants of the offence under Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act, cancelled their bail bonds, and directed refund of any fine deposited.