Recovery of stray cannabis plants without evidence of conscious cultivation is insufficient for conviction under NDPS Act.

On October 14, 2012, police conducted a raid on a maize field in Village Dhauria based on secret information that the respondent was cultivating cannabis.

The police allegedly recovered nine cannabis plants growing amidst the maize crop.

Following investigation, the respondent was charged under Sections 8(b) and 20(a)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

On December 30, 2016, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Seoni, acquitted the respondent, leading the State to file this appeal assailing the acquittal.

The court applied Section 8(b) and Section 20(a)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which prohibit the cultivation of cannabis plants.

It relied on the precedent Nanda Sakhaji Mal v. State of M.P. (2008), which held that stray growth or a small number of plants without evidence of systematic cultivation does not satisfy the burden of proof for "cultivation".

Chhotelal Lodh v. State of M.P. (2012) was cited to emphasize that mere location of plants in a field does not prove conscious cultivation or exclusive possession.

Regarding appellate jurisdiction, the court followed H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), establishing that an acquittal cannot be overturned if the trial court's view is "legal and plausible," even if an alternative view exists.

The Court observed that the independent witness (PW-7) turned hostile, claiming his signatures were obtained without any seizure occurring in his presence.

The Court noted significant procedural lapses: the crime number appeared on seizure memos prepared before the FIR was registered, and the contraband packet reached the Malkhana in a partially open/unsealed state.

Crucially, the land (Survey No. 90) was jointly owned by three persons, and the prosecution failed to prove the respondent’s exclusive possession of the specific 0.03 R.A. where the plants were found.

Applying the "cultivation" test, the court held that nine stray plants in a maize field could constitute wild or spontaneous growth; without evidence of agricultural techniques or systematic rows, "conscious cultivation" under the NDPS Act was not established.

It held that the prosecution failed to prove exclusive possession or deliberate cultivation by the respondent.

The breaks in the chain of custody and procedural irregularities regarding the sealing of samples created reasonable doubt.

The Court concluded that the trial court's findings were not perverse or illegal, and in accordance with the principles of appellate review of acquittals, no interference was warranted.