JUDGMENT : (1) Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by special sessions judge, chhatarpur in special case no. 113/94 decided on 23. 8. 95. (2) Appellant has been convicted under section 20 of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `act') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of rs. 1000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months by the impugned judgment. (3) According to prosecution, on 3. 8. 94 about 1 o'clock in the the noon, mubarak ali, station house officer, harpalpur, received a secret information that appellant had unlawfully cultivated cannabis plants in a garden of village sarsedh. Station house officer mubarak ali then reached the garden at village sarsedh alongwith police staff and panch witnesses and found that appellant had cultivated five cannabis plants amidst papaya and eucalyptus trees without any licence. The aforesaid plants were uprooted and seized from the garden cultivated by the appellant in presence of panch witnesses. Appellant was arrested for unlawful cultivation of cannabis plants and was taken to the police station and an offence under section 20 of the act was registered against him and was investigated. The seized cannabis plants were sent for forensic examination. As per forensic report, seized plants were found to be cannabis. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under section 20 of the act and was put to trial before special court, chhatarpur. (4) Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. (5) Appeal is preferred inter alia on the ground that the trial court gravely erred in relying upon the inconsistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses, although the most important witness effecting alleged seizure of cannabis plants was not examined in the case, and erroneously convicted the appellant without there being any cogent evidence that the appellant cultivated the cannabis plants or garden in question. (6) Learned counsel for the state, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. (7) Perused the evidence on record. According to sub - inspector mubarak ali (p. W - 5) , on 3. 8. (6) Learned counsel for the state, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. (7) Perused the evidence on record. According to sub - inspector mubarak ali (p. W - 5) , on 3. 8. 94 on receiving secret information that appellant had cultivated cannabis plants in his field, apprised the additional s. P. And proceeded with him and the panch witnesses, for the field of the appellant, where he had grown cannabis plants amidst papaya and eucalyptus trees, which were seized by additional s. P. Gautam in his presence and the presence of panch witnesses vide seizure memo (ex. P - 2). However, additional s. P. Gautam, who is said to have effected the seizure of the cannabis plants vide seizure memo ex. P - 2, has not been examined in the case. One of the panch witnesses, namely, karan singh (p. W - 3) has also not supported the factum of the seizure of any cannabis plants from the appellant and he has not even been declared hostile by the prosecution. The other panch witness banshidhar (p. W - 4) appears to be a pocket witness of the police department. There is also glaring inconsistency in the evidence of the panch witness banshidhar (p. W - 4) and sub inspector mubarak ali (p. W - 5). According to sub inspector mubarak ali (p. W - 5) , the police team had reached the spot at village sarsed at 15. 20 hours and five cannabis plants were seized from appellant's field, whereas as per statement of p. W - 4 banshidhar, police had reached the spot at 11. 00 in the day and seized eleven cannabis plants from appellant's garden. Although p. W - 4 banshidhar stated in his chief examination that eleven cannabis plants were up rooted from appellant's garden, he admitted in his cross - examination that at that time, he was not working in his field, but he was at home and his house was located at the distance of nearly 1 km, which makes his testimony highly doubtful that any uprooting or seizure of cannabis plants was done in his presence. (8) Moreover, there is no cogent evidence on record that the appellant had himself cultivated the cannabis plants or the place or vegetable garden from where the cannabis plants were allegedly seized belonged to him or was cultivated by him. (8) Moreover, there is no cogent evidence on record that the appellant had himself cultivated the cannabis plants or the place or vegetable garden from where the cannabis plants were allegedly seized belonged to him or was cultivated by him. Sub inspector mubarak ali (p. W - 5) has made a bald statement that appellant had grown cannabis plants amidst papaya and eucalyptus trees, but the same is not authenticated by any revenue records. According to sub inspector mubarak ali (p. W - 5) , he was informed by the witnesses that appellant had cultivated the vegetable garden unauthorizedly over the government land; but again there is no supportive documentary evidence on record to indicate unauthorized possession of the appellant over the government land or depicting cultivation of the garden in question by him. On the other hand, constable arimardan singh (p. W - 1) who claimed to have witnessed the seizure of five cannabis plants from the vegetable garden, has said that the garden actually belonged to appellant's relatives and appellant was only a caretaker. (9) The village patwari khemchandra yadav (p. W - 2) , who prepared the spot map (ex. P - 1) , has also not given any substantive evidence in this behalf. He also said that he had come to know that the village garden and cannabis plants were grown by the appellant, but he does not seem to have any personal knowledge, nor his information is based on any revenue records. Although, he said that the land in question was a government land, but he admitted in his cross - examination that he has not mentioned or shown the possession of any person in the spot map (ex. P - 1) prepared by him. He also admitted in cross - examination that very often seeds of cannabis are flown in the rainy season and sprout up at any place. (10) The apex court in the case of alakh ram vs. State of u. P. Reported in air 2004 supreme court page 2907 has held that in order to prove the guilt under section 20 of the n. D. P. S. Act, it must be proved that the accused had cultivated the prohibited plants. (10) The apex court in the case of alakh ram vs. State of u. P. Reported in air 2004 supreme court page 2907 has held that in order to prove the guilt under section 20 of the n. D. P. S. Act, it must be proved that the accused had cultivated the prohibited plants. It would be profitable to reproduce the following observation made by their lordships in this behalf in para 4 of the aforesaid judgment: - "under section 8 (b) of the ndps act, cultivation of opium poppy or any cannabis plant is prohibited and under section 20 of the ndps act, such cultivation of cannabis plant is made punishable with imprisonment and fine. In order to prove the guilt, it must be proved that the accused had cultivated this prohibited plant. There must be supporting evidence to prove that the accused cultivated the plant and it is not enough that few plants were found in the property of the accused. It is quite reasonable to assume that sometimes the plants may sprout up, if seeds happened to be embedded in earth due to natural process. If plants are sprouted by natural growth, it cannot be said that it amounts to cultivation. " (11) In the instant case, there is no cogent evidence on record that the appellant himself had cultivated the cannabis plants. There is also no cogent or authentic evidence on record that the place, where the cannabis plants were grown, was in possession of the appellant or was cultivated by him. The evidence of p. W - 4 banshidhar is not found to be dependable and trustworthy. In absence of any cogent, reliable and authentic evidence to the effect that the garden was actually cultivated by the appellant, no presumption or inference under section 54 (b) of the n. D. P. S. Act could be safely drawn that appellant had grown cannabis plants there. (12) In the wake of aforesaid, the charge under section 20 of the act for unlawful cultivation of cannabis plants was not proved against the appellant beyond periphery of doubt. His conviction under section 20 of the act, therefore, cannot be safely maintained. (13) Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed on him under section 20 of the act are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. (14) Appellant is on bail. His conviction under section 20 of the act, therefore, cannot be safely maintained. (13) Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed on him under section 20 of the act are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. (14) Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.