Material inconsistencies in recovery location and failure to prove exclusive possession of land vitiate NDPS conviction.

On November 14, 2017, police conducted a search at the house of the respondent, Khillu Varman, based on informant data regarding the illegal cultivation of cannabis

Police allegedly recovered a cannabis plant measuring 8 feet 1 inch (weighing 4.826 kg) planted in land adjoining the open courtyard of the respondent's house

The respondent was charged under Section 8(ga)/20 of the NDPS Act, 1985

In his Section 313 CrPC statement, the accused pleaded false implication due to a wage dispute with the Investigating Officer

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on November 24, 2022, leading the State to file this appeal assailing the acquittal

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband was recovered from a place under the exclusive ownership or possession of the accused?

2. Whether the material contradictions in the testimonies of the seizure witnesses and police officials vitiated the prosecution's case?

3. Whether there is any patent perversity in the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal warranting interference by the Appellate Court?

The court applied Section 8(g) and Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which prohibit the cultivation and possession of cannabis

Procedurally, the court looked at Section 42(2) regarding information and search procedures and Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal

The court relied on the principles from H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, which hold that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the Trial Court’s view is a "legally plausible view," even if a contrary view is possible, unless there is patent perversity or an error of law.

The High Court found several fatal flaws in the prosecution's evidence. First, there were material contradictions regarding the site of recovery: the IO (PW-5) claimed the plant was on government land near a pond, while the independent witness (PW-1) and Head Constable (PW-3) claimed it was inside the courtyard

Second, the number of plants recovered was inconsistent, varying between one and six in different testimonies

Third, the prosecution failed to prove "exclusive possession"; the Halka Patwari (PW-4) admitted the land was government property and her report of the accused's encroachment was based on hearsay rather than direct observation

Additionally, the Malkhana Register (Ex.P/15C) failed to record whether the articles were sealed or the specific times of deposit/removal, creating doubt regarding safe custody

The court reasoned that since the Trial Court's view was a plausible interpretation of these inconsistencies, interference was not justified

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's acquittal was upheld