Mere recovery of stray cannabis plants from an open area does not constitute conscious cultivation under the NDPS Act.

On December 14, 2016, police acted on confidential information and seized two cannabis (ganja) plants weighing 6.395 kg from land allegedly in front of the respondent’s house.

The respondent was charged under Section 8 read with Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act.

The trial court (XVIII Special Judge, Sagar) acquitted the respondent on July 30, 2022, primarily due to the prosecution's failure to prove exclusive possession of the land and the possibility of wild growth.

The State filed this appeal seeking leave to challenge the acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in exclusive possession/ownership of the land from which the contraband was seized.

2. Whether the recovery of two cannabis plants amounts to intentional "cultivation" under the NDPS Act or could be attributed to spontaneous wild growth.

3. Whether there were procedural irregularities, specifically regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence and sealing, that vitiated the prosecution's case.

Section 8 and Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, regarding the prohibition and punishment for cultivation of cannabis plants.

Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act for the admissibility of digital photographs.

Precedents Nanda Sakhaji Mal v. State of M.P. and Chhotelal Lodh v. State of M.P., which establish that mere stray plants do not constitute "cultivation" and that ownership of the land must be strictly proven.

Restrictive principles regarding appellate interference in acquittals laid down in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka.

The Court observed that while the prosecution produced a house certificate (Ex.P/64), it failed to prove that the search occurred at that specific property (House No. 17).

The Investigating Officer admitted the plants were found 10 meters away from the house, yet no investigation was conducted to prove the respondent owned or possessed that specific patch of land.

On the charge of "cultivation," the court reasoned that the presence of only two plants, without evidence of agricultural techniques or systematic planting (e.g., rows or beds), suggested spontaneous wild growth rather than deliberate farming.

The prosecution failed to provide a Section 65-B certificate for spot photographs, rendering them inadmissible.

The court found the trial court's view to be a "plausible view" based on the evidence, noting that an acquittal cannot be overturned merely because a different conclusion is possible.

The prosecution failed to establish the respondent’s exclusive possession of the site of seizure and failed to prove conscious "cultivation" as opposed to natural growth.

The trial court’s judgment did not suffer from perversity or illegality and the benefit of the doubt was rightly extended to the accused.