The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, regarding the illegal cultivation of cannabis plants and the application of the same to the circumstances of the case.

S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Deputy Government Advocate representing the respondent-State.

2. Perused the record.

3. The appellant feels aggrieved by his conviction under section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment besides imposition of a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default whereof he has to undergo six month's further rigorous imprisonment, has approached, this Court seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned order and his acquittal.

4. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The facts found and established on record indicate that the appellant was residing in a Tapra along with his family which Tapra was situate in an agricultural holding, Survey Plot No. 17/2 having an area of 0.105 hectare. On 1-4-1992 at about 15.30 hours in the aforesaid agricultural holding situate in village Rangayee, on the Vidisha- Bhopal road at a distance of about 25 feet from the Tapra of the appellant 16 cannabis plants of the height ranging 1 1/2 to 2 feet were found grown by the appellant, who did the cultivation of vegetables in the aforesaid plot of land. At the time of the raid and the arrest of the appellant it was noticed that the aforesaid 16 cannabis plants were found to have been grown in a kuari (Furrow) and were regularly watered.

5. After due investigation challan was filed. The appellant was charged for having grown in an illegal manner 16 cannabis plants in contravention of section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and liable for punishment under section 20 thereof.

6. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded to be innocent.

7. The prosecution examined in support of its version Harishankar as P.W. 1. He was constable in the excise department. Prosecution also examined Halkaiya as P.W. 2. This witness, however, turned hostile.

8. Ashok Dixit, P.W.3, was also examined, who was the District Excise Officer, Vidisha, who had visited the spot where the cannabis plants were found to be grown, in the presence of Sub-inspector S.B. Khare and two or three other constables including Harishankar Sharma.

9. Ramsewak was examined as P.W.4, Arun Shrivastava as P.W. 5 and Alok Shrivastava as P.W.6, S.B. Khare, Sub-Inspector was examined as P.W. 7. He had also reached the spot along with the District Excise Officer, after receiving the information in regard to the illegal cultivation of the cannabis plants. Chhedilal was examined as P.W,8. He was, however, declared hostile.

10. The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant had been in possession of the agricultural holding, Survey plot No. 17/2 and it was duly established by the prosecution that it was the appellant who had sown 16 cannabis plants and had been tending the same. The trial Court believed the prosecution version in regard to the recovery of cannabis plants and also upheld the prosecution version that plants were in fact cannabis plants as confirmed by the Chemical Examiner vide the report, Ex.P-10. The appellant was found to have contravened the provisions contained in section 8 of the Act and the trial Court convicted the appellant under section 8/20 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment besides imposition of a fine of Rs. 2,000/- providing further that in default of payment of fine by the appellant he had to undergo additional six month's rigorous imprisonment.

11. The provisions contained in section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 prohibit the cultivation of any cannabis plant except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of the Act and the rules and orders made thereunder. In exercise of the powers conferred by first proviso to section 8 of the aforesaid