Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Farmer in Ganja Cultivation Case Over Inadmissible Confession and Procedural Violations

Court Overturns Conviction Under NDPS Act

In a significant ruling on November 27, 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, allowed Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2013 and acquitted appellant Jadhav Gopal of charges under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The decision reversed a January 17, 2023, conviction by the Special Judge for NDPS Cases-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, which had sentenced Gopal to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 2,000 fine. The court emphasized the inadmissibility of confessional statements and non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards, highlighting protections against unreliable evidence in drug-related prosecutions.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an October 2, 2009, raid on agricultural land in Survey No. 10/185/E, Nimmathanda Village, Sirpur (U) Mandal, Adilabad district. Excise officials, acting on credible information, discovered approximately 3,500 ganja plants (measuring 5-10 feet) intercropped with cotton on land owned by Gopal's wife, Jadav Sangeetha Bai. Gopal, a 29-year-old Lambada caste farmer from the village, was present and managed the farming operations. Officials drew 100 grams of ganja samples (50 grams each in two packets), destroyed the remaining plants with villagers' assistance, and apprehended Gopal. A First Information Report (PR No. 258/2009-10) was registered under Sections 8(b) and 20(a) of the NDPS Act. Chemical analysis confirmed the samples as ganja, leading to charges framed as NDSC No. 1 of 2012. The prosecution examined four witnesses (PWs 1-4) and marked exhibits P1-P7 and material objects M.O.1-2, while the defense presented one witness (DW.1).

The legal question centered on whether the prosecution proved Gopal's culpable cultivation of prohibited ganja, given evidentiary gaps, procedural irregularities, and reliance on an alleged confession.

Prosecution and Defense Arguments

The prosecution, represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor M. Vivekananda Reddy, argued that Gopal violated Section 8(b) of the NDPS Act by cultivating ganja on family land. They relied on witness testimonies (PWs 2-4) about the raid, sample collection, destruction of plants, and the chemical report (CE No. 1012/09-1 dated October 15, 2009). The land records (Adangal/Pahani 2009-10) confirmed ownership by Gopal's wife, but officials asserted Gopal's active involvement.

Gopal's counsel, Vivek Jain (represented by G. Aravind), countered that no independent evidence supported the cultivation charge. Key submissions included:

• Inadmissible Confession : The trial court relied on Gopal's statement during the panchanama (proceeding record), but such confessions to NDPS-empowered officers (under Section 53) are inadmissible per Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Lack of Corroborative Evidence : Despite claims of videography and photographs of plant removal and burning (admitted by PWs 1, 3, and 4), none were produced. Unexamined villagers who assisted in destruction provided no independent corroboration.
• Procedural Lapses : Non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, as PW.4 admitted informing superiors only by phone without written forwarding within 72 hours or producing the General Diary entry.
• Minimal Sample Analysis : Only 100 grams were analyzed, insufficient to prove 3,500 plants without direct evidence.

Counsel cited precedents like Rajkumar Hariram Gameti v. State of Gujarat (2024) 11 SCC 421 and State v. Ravi Kumar @ Toni (Delhi High Court, 2019) to argue fatal investigative flaws.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The High Court applied established Supreme Court jurisprudence, distinguishing reliable evidence from procedural shortcuts in NDPS cases, where strict compliance is mandatory to prevent abuse.

• In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, a three-judge bench overruled earlier views ( Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India (2008) 4 SCC 668; Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 409), holding NDPS officers as "police officers" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Thus, statements under Section 67 NDPS Act cannot be confessional for conviction purposes—reaffirmed in Rajkumar Hariram Gameti .

• State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172, Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609, and State of Gujarat v. Jagraj Singh (2016) 11 SCC 687 stressed unwaivable safeguards like those in Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act. In Ravi Kumar @ Toni , the Delhi High Court acquitted due to similar lapses, including absent witnesses and missing footage.

• On Section 42 compliance, Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 2 SCC 513 allows condonation of delays if explained, but State of Karnataka v. Dondusa Namasa Baddi (2010) 12 SCC 495 deemed total non-compliance fatal. Union of India v. L.D. Balam Singh (2002 (2) ALD Crl. 298 (SC)) and Shahidkhan v. Director of Revenue Intelligence (2011 (1) ALD (Crl.) 781 (A.P.)) reinforced that unproven superior notification prejudices the accused.

The court distinguished this from cases with robust evidence, noting the conviction's sole basis in the inadmissible panchanama statement: "It is trite law that the confession statement given by the accused is inadmissible under law, especially in view of the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

• On evidence gaps: "In the absence of any independent evidence, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the accused is found guilty... solely basing upon the confession statement... Admittedly, the land belongs to the wife of the accused and he is doing cultivation."

• On procedural violation: "From the evidence of PW.4, it is revealed that he has not sent the copy to his immediate superior officer, which proves that he has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act."

• Broader implication: "Such statements made to officers empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible and cannot form the basis of conviction."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitting Gopal under Section 20(b)(i) NDPS Act and discharging his bail bonds. Pending applications were closed.

This ruling underscores the NDPS Act's rigorous standards, protecting against convictions on shaky foundations. It serves as a caution for prosecutors to secure independent evidence and adhere to Section 42, potentially influencing similar drug cultivation cases in India. For farmers in rural areas, it highlights risks of familial land ownership entangling uninvolved parties without proof of direct culpability.