Judgment S. C. MITAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment dated 2-8-1996 passed by learned Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Cases, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No. 65/89. The appellant Raya has been convicted for offence under Section 9/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (in short the Act, 1985) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. one lac or in default further rigorous imprisonment for 21/2 years. ( 2 ) S. H. O. , Dholapani Raman Lal received secret information at 1. 15 p. m. on 26-3-1989 that Raya appellant has cultivated opium in his field. In pursuance of this information, he went to village Manpura and found the appellant Raya in his house. The appellant pointed out the opium plants. About 30 plants were uprooted and taken into possession. 10 opium poppy plants were separately taken out as sample and sealed on the spot in the presence of the motbirs. After obtaining the Forensic Science Laboratory report, challan was submitted against the appellant and the trial was held for the charge under Section 8/18 of the Act, 1985 resulting in the conviction and sentence indicated above. The appellant denied the accusation and stated that he has been implicated by the police in the false case. The field in question is not in his possession and Khatedari. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The appellant got examined Naru as defence witness. The learned Special Judge after evaluating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the field was in the exclusive possession of the appellant he cultivated the opium poppy and found the prosecution witnesses reliable in this regard. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also carefully perused the statements of the witnesses examined by both the sides. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned Special Judge has seriously erred in holding the field to be in the possession of the appellant and cultivation of opium poppy by him. It is argued that it is rather proved from documentary as well as oral testimony that the field in question does not belong to the appellant and the appellant is not in possession of the same. It is argued that it is rather proved from documentary as well as oral testimony that the field in question does not belong to the appellant and the appellant is not in possession of the same. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish that the alleged opium poppy plants were cultivated by the appellant and were in his exclusive possession in his field. It is revealed from the record that the prosecution witnesses Dhula (PW. 3), Deva (P. W. 4), Nand Lal (P. W. 5), Patwari Shanti Lal (P. W. 6), Bhagga (P. W. 8), Ganga Ram (P. W. 10), Kachru (P. W. 11) and Lachhaya (P. W. 13) have not supported the prosecution. All these witnesses have been declared hostile and the learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined these witnesses but nothing could be elicted against the appellant. It may be noted that P. W. 10 Ganga Ram, P. W. 13 Lachhaya and P. W. 8 Bhagga are the neighbours of the field in question, which is said to be owned by and in possession the appellant. But they have denied about any cultivation of opium poppy by the appellant in his field. Patwari Shanti Lal (P. W. 6) has desposed that there is a well of the appellant Raya in this field and his house is at a distance of 2 Furlong. He further states that appellant Raya and his all the brothers have separated and they are in possession of their portions of the land. The fact of partition is not recorded in the revenue record. He further states in the chief examination that he has no personal knowledge about possession of this field, but it is in the possession of the Khatedars. The learned Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court cross-examined him but he has reiterated that this land is entered in the name of four Khatedars and he cannot say as to who is in possession of separate portions. He also does not know how this field has been partitioned and which portion has fallen in the possession of the appellant Raya. He also does not know how this field has been partitioned and which portion has fallen in the possession of the appellant Raya. ( 6 ) I have no hesitation to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not been able to establish the exclusive possession of the field in question where the alleged opium poppy was cultivated and the plants were seized and sample was also sealed. Ex. P5 and Ex. P7 Khasra Girdawaries show that four Khatedars of the land are Rama, Bhagga, Gautam Deo ji and Kachriya. The other witnesses are police officials and they have no sufficient knowledge. It transpires from their statements that they do not know the Khasra numbers and they also do not now whether the land is in joint possession of all the Khatedars. In view of the above description of the prosecution evidence, I am firmly of the view that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the recovery of the opium poppy plants from the field of or in the exclusive possession of the appellant Raya. The learned trial court has not taken into consideration the above facts brought on record in statements of the prosecution witnesses. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on 1989 Cr LR (Raj) 391 Megharam v. The State of Rajasthan wherein opium was recovered from Jhumpa in joint possession of the accused and his brother. It was held that the opium was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused and conviction could not be sustained. In the instant case I find that the field in question is in joint possession of 4-5 Khatedars and no where it has been proved by cogent and reliable evidence that the appellant was in exclusive possession of any portion of this Khasra land. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that it is not proved that the appellant Raya cultivated opium poppy or that plants were found and recovered in the field in executive possession of the appellant. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment dated 2-8-1996 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid offence. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment dated 2-8-1996 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid offence. If not required in any other case, appellant Raya shall be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed.