JUDGMENT : V. SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been against the Judgment in Calender Case No. 151 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore dated 26.07.2013. 2. The appellants along with three other accused, viz.Guruchithan, Ravi and Veeran are prosecuted by the Forest Range Officer, Asanur Forest in Crime No. 1 of 2012 for having cultivated the Ganja (Cannabis) plant at the Kethasal forest settlement area. They were charged under Section 45(a), (b) and 51 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882 and under Section 8(b) r/w 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act 1985 (herein after referred to as “The Act”) before the Special Court for Essential Commodities Act cases, Coimbatore. 3. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses (PWs. 1 to 11) and filed 15 documents (Exs.P.1 to 15), besides marked 2 Material Objects (M.O's.1 and 2). 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, found the appellants 1 and 2 herein guilty under Section 8 (b) r/w 20 (a) (i) of the NDPS Act 1985 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to pay the fine, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment each. The accused 3 to 5 were acquitted from the charges. 5. Against the said conviction, the present criminal appeal has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court acquitted the three accused persons, viz. Guruchithan, Ravi and Veeran on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused illegally planted ganja saplings in their forest settlement area; prosecution failed to prove the place from where the ganja plants, M.O's.1 and 2 were recovered; the Trial Court accepting the contention raised by the defence counsel, who appeared on behalf of the three accused persons acquitted them and convicted the appellants solely on the ground that they gave confession stateement-Ex.P.1 and P2; the Trial Court failed to consider the legal position that the confession recorded under Section 65 of the Act is not a substantial evidence to convict the accused and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 882 squarely settled the issue that the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act cannot be used as a confession statement in the trial of offence under the NDPS Act; further the prosecution never let any evidence to show that these appellants have planted ganja plants in their allotted forest settlement area; the alleged place was a forest area as per the prosecution document Ex.P.9, it is not forest settlement area allotted to the appellants/accused and to show that the said land was earmarked to them, no document was produced on the side of the prosecution; if the alleged confession statement-Exs.P1 and P2 goes out, there is no evidence against the appellants; the Trial Court without considering the fact and without any evidence to connect the appellants with the crime convicted them. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the judgment of the Trial Court and further contended that M.O's.1 and 2 - ganja plants were seized from the appellants land. It is confessed by them through confession statement, before the Forest Officer; recovery of ganja plants were proved through the evidence of PW-2 to 4; under these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court and thus pleaded to dismiss the appeal. 8. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. A perusal of the prosecution evidence and the documents, it indicates that the prosecution did not let any evidence to show that the area from which the ganja plants-M.O's.1 and 2 were seized and there is no proof to show that the said lands were belongs to the appellants. Evidence of PW-1-Raja Mohan is relevant in this regard. During his cross examination before the Trial Court, he admitted that he did not know whether the area was allotted to the appellants or not. His evidence reads as follows: OTHERS LANGUAGE 10. PW-3 P.G. Syed Shafi, Forestor, during his cross examination state that he did not know the area which are belongs to the appellants. His statement runs as follows: OTHERS LANGUAGE 11. PW-6 Sivasubramaniam, Forestor filed the Ex.P.9-Gazette Notification before the Trial Court and stated that the place was a reserved forest. His evidence runs as follows: OTHERS LANGUAGE 12. PW-3 P.G. Syed Shafi, Forestor, during his cross examination state that he did not know the area which are belongs to the appellants. His statement runs as follows: OTHERS LANGUAGE 11. PW-6 Sivasubramaniam, Forestor filed the Ex.P.9-Gazette Notification before the Trial Court and stated that the place was a reserved forest. His evidence runs as follows: OTHERS LANGUAGE 12. Further, PW-6, in his cross examination had admitted that in the reserve forest, no one is permitted to reside. PW-10-Chithaiyan, Forest Officer, during his cross examination admitted that he did not produce any document to show that the area from which the ganja plants were seized, which are in possession of the appellants/accused. There is no evidence to prove that the appellants cultivating ganja in that area. The Trial Court in its Judgment, paragraph No. 19, observed the fact that the prosecution has failed to produce the documents to support its case. The benefit was given only to the accused 3 to 5, viz. Guruchithan, Ravi and Veeran and not applied to the appellants herein. Finding of the Trial Court in this aspect is legally unsustainable and the same benefit ought to have been given to the appellants also. 13. Evidentiary value of the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act was considered by the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh case, cited supra and settled the legal position that the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act cannot be used as a confession statement in the Trial of offence under the Act. Therefore, it is unacceptable of being used as substantive evidence to convict the appellants. If the confession statements of the appellants in Ex.P.1 and 2 goes out, no evidence is available against the appellants to hold that they have cultivated the ganja plants in their lands. In a criminal trial, an accused persons stand with the presumption of innocence is in his favour and the presumption holds the field, till the prosecution succeeds in estabishing the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 14. In this case there is no legal evidence against the appellants. Order of conviction can be based only on legal evidence and not on hypothetical propositions or unwarranted inference. Surmises and suppositions cannot take the place of legal proof in a criminal trial. In the absence of any legal proof, there can be no legal criminality. 14. In this case there is no legal evidence against the appellants. Order of conviction can be based only on legal evidence and not on hypothetical propositions or unwarranted inference. Surmises and suppositions cannot take the place of legal proof in a criminal trial. In the absence of any legal proof, there can be no legal criminality. In view of the above, this Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the order of conviction made in Calender Case No. 151 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore dated 26.07.2013 is hereby set aside. Bail bond, if any executed shall stand cancelled and the fine amount paid, if any may be returned to the appellants.