In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court quashed a case filed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act against a 67-year-old Bengaluru resident, Chandrashekar, who was accused of cultivating cannabis plants in his backyard. The court, presided over by Justice M Nagaprasanna, found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner was intentionally cultivating the prohibited plant.
The case originated from a police search conducted on September 1, 2023, at Chandrashekar's residence in Jayanagar, Bengaluru. Acting on a tip-off, the police alleged that the petitioner was cultivating five to six cannabis plants in his backyard. The search led to the seizure of these plants, and a case was registered under Sections 20(a) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. The police subsequently filed a charge sheet against Chandrashekar, asserting that he was guilty of illegal cultivation.
In his defense, Chandrashekar contended that the plants in question were among various general weeds growing in his backyard and that there was no deliberate cultivation on his part. He suggested that, at most, the presence of cannabis could be attributed to cross-pollination. Moreover, he argued that the police had failed to segregate the cannabis plants from other vegetation during the seizure. The entire batch, including roots, stems, leaves, buds, and even plastic bags, was weighed together, amounting to 27.360 kilograms. This method of weighing, he claimed, was contrary to legal standards and did not accurately reflect the quantity of contraband.
The prosecution, on the other hand, maintained that the seizure of the plants and the quantity involved were matters to be examined during the trial. They argued that the charge sheet established a prima facie case of cultivation against the petitioner.
Upon reviewing the case records, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the prosecution had not presented any concrete evidence to demonstrate that Chandrashekar was actively cultivating cannabis. The court observed that the method of weighing the seized plants, without proper segregation, undermined the credibility of the evidence. Furthermore, the court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Alakh Ram v. State of U.P., which held that plants growing naturally without human intervention do not constitute cultivation under the NDPS Act.
Applying this precedent, the High Court concluded that the facts of the case did not support the allegation of intentional cultivation. The court emphasized that the mere presence of cannabis plants, without evidence of deliberate cultivation, was insufficient to sustain charges under the NDPS Act. Consequently, the court allowed Chandrashekar's petition and quashed the proceedings against him.
This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and evidentiary standards in narcotics cases. It highlights the necessity for law enforcement agencies to distinguish between intentional cultivation and natural growth, ensuring that individuals are not wrongfully prosecuted without substantial proof of culpability.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.