ALAKH RAM versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 08-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ALAKH RAM 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
JANUARY 8, 2004 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, /985: 
C 
ss. 8 and 20-·f 7 ganja plants seized Ji-om agricultural field belonging 
to accused-Accused prosecuted on the charge that he planted ganja plants 
in his field-Conviction and 3 years imprisonment awarded by trial court-
Afjirmed by High Court-Held, in order to prove the guilt, it must be proved 
that accused had cultivated the prohibited plants-There is no evidence that 
there was cultivation of Ganja plants by accused-Having regard to the extent 
D of the property and the number of plants recovered from that property, it 
cannot be said that the said plants had been the result of cultivation-They 
may have sprouted there by natural process and the accused or anybody who 
is the owner of the property must not have been diligent in destroying them-
Accused not found guilty of offence uls 20-His conviction and sentence set 
aside. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
36 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.1.2003 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Crl. A. No. 243 of 1994. 
R.P. Gupta, Ms. Kamakshi and S. Mehlwal for the Appellant. 
R.P. Mehrotra, R. Singh and Garvesh Kabra, for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The appellant Alakh Ram was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, 
Jhansi for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the 
NDPS Act. He was found guilty under Section 20 and was sentenced to 
394 
I 
ALAKH RAM v. STATE OF U.P. 
395 
-...\" 
undergo three years imprisonment. He filed an appeal before the High Court A 
and by the impugned Judgment, the High Court declined to interfere with the 
conviction and sentence. 
The case against the. appellant was that the he planted Ganja in his 
Artieo field and on 9.6. I 992, the Station Officer Ravinder Kumar Mishra 
with Constable. P.S. Katera visited the agricultural field belonging to the B 
appellant and seized I 7 Ganja plants allegedly planted by the appellant. Two 
witnesses were also present at the time of the recovery of these plants. All 
the 17 plants were taken into custody and on chemical analysis, it was proved 
that these plants were Ganja plants. The appellant on being questioned under 
Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he had filed a criminal complaint against four 
persons and the SDM had passed order in his favour and that when he went c 
to the police station to serve the order in his favour and that when he went 
to the police station to serve the order passed by the SDM, he was falsely 
implicated in the case. 
We heard the appellant's Counsel and the Counsel for the respondent. D 
Under Section 8(b) of the NDPS Act, cultivation of opium poppy or any 
... 
cannabis plant is prohibited and under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, such 
• 
cultivation of cannabis plant is made punishable with imprisonment and fine. 
In order to prove the guilt, it must be proved that the accused had cultivated 
this prohibited plant. There must be supporting evidence to prove that the E 
accused cultivated the plant and it is not enough that few plants were found 
in the property of the accused. It is quite reasonable to assume that sometimes 
the plants may sprout up, if seeds happened to be embedded in earth due to 
natural process. If plants are sprouted by natural growth, it cannot be said 
that it amounts to cultivation. 
In the instant case, one witness was examined to prove the nature of the F 
.j 
offence committed by the accused. It was PW I who accompanied the police 
officers to the appellant's field. The evidence given by PW! is to the following 
effect:-
"Alakh Ram is a farmer. I do not know the number of those G 
fields. I do not know the number of that field in which Ganja were 
sown. I do not know as to who had cultivated the plants of Ganja. 
~ , 
That field is irrigated and Madho also works in that field. Neither 
have I seen anyone planting the Ganja plants nor do I know when 
was it planted." 
H 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] I S.C.R. 
A 
The above evidence is to be appreciated in the background of other 
evidence on record. Appellant Alakh Ram, his father and brothers owned 70 
bighas of land. The prosecution has not produced any document to show that 
the property from which the Ganja plants were uprooted belonged to appellant 
Alakh Ram exclusively. The witnesses who were examined i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.