Prosecution must prove exclusive possession or active cultivation to sustain conviction for cannabis cultivation under NDPS Act.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad, in Special Case No. 386/2022 for allegedly cultivating 62.190 kg of cannabis plants on Gut No. 29 in Jarandi village

Following a police raid on October 12, 2022, based on secret information, plants were seized near a well in the field where the appellant was present

The prosecution relied on the 7/12 extract (land records), which listed the appellant as one of four joint holders of the land

The appellant denied the charges under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., stating he did not own the land and was falsely implicated

He challenged the conviction on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove he was the actual cultivator

Whether the prosecution established beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person "cultivating" the cannabis plants as required under Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act

Whether the mere presence of the appellant's name in the 7/12 extract alongside other co-owners is sufficient to attribute "conscious possession" and "cultivation" to him

The court applied Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the cultivation of cannabis

It relied on the definition of "cultivate" meaning a conscious act of planting and nurturing

The court cited *Alakh Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh* (2004) regarding the necessity of proving exclusive ownership or active cultivation when land is held by multiple family members

It further applied the principle from *Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab* (2002) that "possession" requires custody or control, and mere presence or suspicion cannot replace proof

Finally, the court applied the "reasonable doubt" standard as elucidated in *Zainul v. State of Bihar* (2025)

The Court observed that while the 7/12 extract (Exhibit 66) included the appellant’s name, it also listed three other individuals as occupiers, and the prosecution failed to verify which specific portion of the land was cultivated by whom

The Investigating Officer admitted to not recording statements of the other co-owners or the Talathi to determine the actual division of the land

The Court found that "cultivation" entails an active role in growing or nurturing plants, and the prosecution produced no evidence (such as witness testimony from neighbors) showing the appellant performed such acts

Following *Alakh Ram*, the Court noted that the plants could have grown naturally, and without evidence of exclusive control, the appellant could not be held liable

The Court rejected the state’s reliance on the appellant’s purported oral admission at the spot, noting that such statements to police are procedurally inadequate to sustain a conviction

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court, and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act

The Court directed the appellant's immediate release and the refund of any fine paid