By this appeal, the appellant Challenges his conviction under Section 20 (a) (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth the `Act') by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur in Special Criminal Case No.222/1996 vide judgment dated 17.01.1998 for cultivating and having been found in possession of 15 cannabis plants on 16.8.1996 at Village Birodidand and the sentence of R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergone R.I. for 1 year.

(2) Brief facts as unfolded by the prosecution case are that on 16.8.1996, upon receiving secret information that the appellant was cultivating cannabis plants in his Badi in Village Birodidand, Station House Officer of P.S. Sonhat-Bajnath Singh (PW-5) accompanied by two witnesses Ramprasad (PW-2) and Rampratap (PW-3) reached the Badi of the appellant and found that 15 cannabis plants had grown in Badi. After completing the necessary formalities, Baijnath Singh (PW-5) seized the 15 cannabis plants vide Ex.P-2 from the appellant, wrapped them in a sari and a piece of cloth and sealed. Dehati F.I.R. was recorded vide Ex.P-8 on the same day and on reaching P.S. Sonhat, F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex.P-9. The sealed packet of cannabis plants was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar with memo Ex.P-12 dated 2.9.1996 through Constable Balraj Choudary. The said articles reached the Forensic Science Laboratory on 10.9.1996. Upon examination of the contents of the sealed packet, it was reported by the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P-14 that the 15 plants contained in the sealed packet were cannabis plants. Investigation revealed that the Badi from where the cannabis plants were seized was jointly recorded in the name of one Lavango and Bhagwati Bai, the wife of the appellant. The appellant was prosecuted under Section 20 (a) (b) (i) of the Act.

(3) The appellant abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and led no evidence in defence.

(4) The prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. Relying upon the testimony of Rampratap (PW-3) and Station House Officer Baijnath Singh (PW- 5) and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory , learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 (supra).

(5) Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the conviction of the appellant under Section 20 (a) (b) (i) of the Act on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the plantation of cannabis plants was done exclusively by the appellant. It was also argued that there is no material on record to show that the cannabis plants seized from the field were in conscious and exclusive possession of the appellant since the Badi from where the plants were seized, was recorded jointly in the name of Lavango and Bhagwati Bai. Placing reliance on Alka Ram Vs. State of U.P. (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 766, it was urged that the possibility that the cannabis plants had sprouted due to natural growth and were not the result of cultivation by the appellant, could not be ruled out. Attention was drawn to para 3 of the testimony of the independent witness Rampratap (PW- 3), who had stated that the place from where cannabis plants were found, other plants like Chakouda and corn had also sprouted and there was no crop beneath the Mango tree from where the cannabis plants were seized.

(6) On the other hand, Shri G.D. Vaswani, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent while arguing in support of the impugned judgment, contended that the Badi from where the cannabis plants were seized stood recorded in the name of the wife of the appellant i.e. Bhagwati Bai though jointly with one Lavango. Since cultivation was predominantly done by male members of the family, it could be presumed that the cultivation was done by the appellant alone and by no other person. (7) Having heard the rival submissions, I have perused the record. In a similar case, the Supreme Court had