JUDGMENT : G. BASAVARAJA, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 05.02.2014 passed in Spl.C.No.43/2006 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tumkur (for short hereinafter referred as the "trial Court"). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Sub- Inspector of Police, Pavagada Police Station filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 8(b), 8(c), 20 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 24.01.2006 in the morning, at about 05.00 am, Sri Balegowda, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of the complainant police station, called PW25 (CW1) K.S.Mohan and Dy.S.P., informing him that the appellant-Sri.Nanjappa @ Meese Nanjappa of Alkere, Huthridurga Hobli, has grown ganja in a huge quantity on his land. Immediately, PW25 summoned C.P.I. of Kunigal Circle, Balaramegowda, the informant- Sri.Balarama Gowda, and the staff. All of them proceeded to conduct a raid on the appellant's land situated in Huliyurdurga village. They have also secured CW2 to CW5 as panchas to be present at the time of raid. In the said land they noticed an Omni van parked and about 8 - 9 persons working. When PW25 along with others tried to catch them, only 3 were apprehended and the remaining people managed to escape. At the enquiry, he came to know that others were Shijju, Jeorge, Shobee, Bijju and few others. On enquiry, PW25 came to know that split up 4 th accused- Balakrishna, contacted accused No.12-Alkere Nanjappa and informed him about growing ganja on his land. The other accused were also getting acquainted with Accused No.12-Nanjappa, and paid huge amount of advance for growing ganja on his land. The raiding team physically searched Naresh and found a knife in his possession. In the van parked in that area, about 5 kgs of ganja in a plastic bag was found, the same was seized, out of which about 250 grams was kept separately as sample for examination. They noticed a shed in the premises where some utensils were found. One more temporary shed was also found in that place, wherein six bags were found, out of which about 250 grams from each bag were kept separately for chemical examination. 5. They noticed a shed in the premises where some utensils were found. One more temporary shed was also found in that place, wherein six bags were found, out of which about 250 grams from each bag were kept separately for chemical examination. 5. The raiding team also noticed that in a garden, land measuring about 5 acres, ganja plants were grown systematically. Water supply facility was also made available for growing ganja crop. The ganja plants had grown at an average height of about 2 to 5 feet. All those plants were uprooted. They were weighing about six tons. PW.25 prepared a report and gave it to Police Officer, Balegowda, who registered a crime under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 6. On 25.01.2006, accused 1 to 3, 6 to 10 were produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. On 10.04.2006, accused 13 and 14 were produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. 7. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the commission of alleged offence. Thereafter, a case was registered in Spl.C. No.43/2006. 8. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8(b), 8(c), 20 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, Accused 1 to 3 and 6 to 14 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, in all, examined 28 witnesses as PWs.1 to 28 and 26 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P26 and 24 Material Objects were marked as MOs.1 to 24. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witness. However, the accused have not adduced any defence evidence on their behalf. 10. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 14 for the offence punishable under Section 20(a), 20(b) (B) and (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 10. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 14 for the offence punishable under Section 20(a), 20(b) (B) and (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. However, the trial Court has convicted accused No.12- Nanjappa A.L, @ Meese Nanjappa S/o Late Lingegowda for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and passed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo additional simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused No. 12/appellant has preferred this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that all the material witnesses PW1 to PW20 turned hostile. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the accused No.12/appellant, being the owner of the land in question, has allowed other accused to cultivate and grow ganja in the disputed land. Further, he would submit that the Investigating Officer has not produced the RTC extract for the year 2006. Exhibit P26-RTC extract produced by the Investigating Officer reveals that in cultivator's column No.12(2) names of cultivator-Chikkahonnayya, Nanjundappa, Lingegowda and A.L.Nanjappa, are found. 12. The Investigating Officer has not examined Chikkahonnayya, Nanjundappa, and Lingegowda. They have also not been arrayed as witnesses or as accused. 13. The Village Accountant-PW26 has not deposed anything against this accused. He has clearly deposed that Survey No.94 of Alkere Village measuring 9 acres 38 guntas belong to accused No.12-A.L.Nanjappa and he had grown Coconut and Arecanut in the said land. There is one bore well in the said land. The appellant/accused residing at Kunigal Town used to come to the land and he has identified the RTC extract-Exhibit P26. Further, he has deposed that police have not recorded his statement. 14. PW1 to PW20 have not deposed in their evidence that accused No.12 has grown ganja in his land. 15. PW22-Nanjundaswamy has deposed that accused No.12 is his elder brother. Further, he has deposed that police have not recorded his statement. 14. PW1 to PW20 have not deposed in their evidence that accused No.12 has grown ganja in his land. 15. PW22-Nanjundaswamy has deposed that accused No.12 is his elder brother. Further, he would submit that the trial Court has committed a material irregularity by failing to consider that the appellant was the only person who was convicted and other accused were acquitted, merely on the ground that the appellant is the owner of the property in question. Absolutely there is no cogent and convincing evidence before the Court. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused, which is not sustainable under law. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel relied on the following judgments: (1) Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine 490 (2) Nirmal Singh Pehlwan Alias Nimma vs. Inspector, Customs, Customs House, Punjab, (2011) 12 SCC 298 (3) R. Gopala Reddy vs. Mohammed Muktar and Another in W.P. No. 13943/2024 16. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri.Rangaswamy.R., would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record and passed the impugned judgment. That there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, it is sought for dismissal of this appeal. 17. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials, the following point would arise for my consideration. (1) Whether the trial Court has committed an error in convicting accused No.12/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 25 of NDPS Act, 1985? Regarding Point No.1 18. My answer to the above finding is in the affirmative. 19. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.01.2006 at 6.30 am, in the land bearing Survey No.94, measuring 4 acres 18 guntas out of total extent of 9 acres 38 guntas, situated at Alkere village belonging to accused No.12 within the limits of Complainant Police Station, accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 14 along with accused Nos.4 and 5 (against whom the case has been split-up), in furtherance of their common intention, were found cultivating Ganja plants in the said land valued at Rs.1 Crore, without having any valid licence or permit. Thus, accused No.12 has committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. Thus, accused No.12 has committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. Thereby, accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 14 have contravened Section 8(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 and thereby committed an offence under Section 20(a) of NDPS Act read with Section 34 of IPC. Further it is alleged that, accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 14 along with accused Nos.4 and 5, against whom the case has been split up on the aforesaid date, time and place in furtherance of their common intention, were found possessing 40 kgs of Ganja, out of which 5 kgs of ganja was found being transported in Maruthi van bearing Reg.No.KA-01/ME-3322 for the purpose of sale and thereby accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 14 have contravened Section 8(c) of NDPS Act. 20. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 28 witnesses as PWs.1 to 28 and marked 26 documents as Exs.P1 to 26. 21. Before appreciation of the evidence on record, it is necessary to mention here as to the provisions of Section 25 of the NDPS Act. Same reads as under: "25. Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence:- Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence." 22. In the case on hand, the only allegation against accused No.12 is that, he being owner of the land in question, knowingly permitted other accused to use the land for the commission of offence punishable under the Provisions of NDPS Act. To substantiate this, the prosecution mainly relied on Ex.P26-RTC Extract for the year 2004-05, which pertains to the land bearing Sy.No.94 of Alkere Village, Huthridurga, Hobli, Kunigal Taluk. The total extent of this land is 9 acres and 38 guntas. It is the case of the prosecution that, out of 9 acres and 8 guntas, the Ganja was grown in 4 acres and 18 guntas. The total extent of this land is 9 acres and 38 guntas. It is the case of the prosecution that, out of 9 acres and 8 guntas, the Ganja was grown in 4 acres and 18 guntas. In column No.9 of the RTC, the name of A.L.Nanjappa, S/o Lingegowda is entered, which measures 9 acres 8 guntas and another 30 guntas is standing in the name of Nanjudappa, S/o Lingegowda. According to the case of the prosecution, A.L.Nanjappa, S/o A.Lingegowda is the accused No.12. Column No.12(2) of the RTC, reveals as the name of the cultivators, 1.Chikkahonnaiah, 2.Nanjundappa, 3.Lingegowda and 4.A.L.Nanjappa. In this RTC, the name of the crop is shown as paddy-2 acre, arecanut-15 guntas, coconut-3 acre, mango-3 acre and house in 8 guntas. The land is dry land, but source of water is shown as bore well. 23. The alleged incident took place on 24.01.2006. To substantiate the contents of RTC-Ex.P26, prosecution has examined the Village Accountant as PW26. He has not whispered anything against the accused. He has only identified the contents of RTC. He has not deposed anything contrary to the contents of Ex.P26. The IO has not whispered anything against the contents of Ex.P26. Even the Village Accountant has not whispered anything against the present accused. The IO has not collected the current pahani extract pertaining to the year 2006 and has not explained anything as to non-production of pahani pertaining to the year 2006. The IO has not whispered anything against the entry of names of cultivators entered in the cultivator's column-12(2) of RTC. In cultivator's column, the names are shown as 1.Chikkahonnaiah, 2.Nanjundappa, 3.Lingegowda and 4. A.L.Nanjappaa. Whether Chikkahonnaiah, Nanjundappa and Lingegowda have grown Ganja or not, has not been examined by the Investigating Officer. The IO has not whispered anything against anything as to the entry shown in column No.12(2) of RTC. 24. In view of Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, there is a statutory presumption regarding entry in the records. It is relevant to mention the provision of Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The same reads as under: "133. 24. In view of Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, there is a statutory presumption regarding entry in the records. It is relevant to mention the provision of Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The same reads as under: "133. Presumption regarding entries in the records:- An entry in the Record of Rights and a certified entry in the Register of Mutations (or in a Patta Book) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore." 25. None of the prosecution witnesses, including Investigating Officer, has whispered anything contrary to the contents of Ex.P26 i.e., RTC Extract. The RTC Extract does not reveal as to the growing of Ganja in the disputed land to the extent of 4 acres 18 guntas as alleged by the prosecution. If really the accused No.12 has allowed the other accused to grow ganja as alleged by the prosecution, the Village Accountant/other Revenue Officers ought to have entered the same in RTC Extract. But they have not done so. The IO has not explained anything in this regard. Apart from this, the trial Court after appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has acquitted all the accused except accused No.12. It is the case of the prosecution that, accused No.12 has allowed accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 11, 13 and 14 along with accused Nos.4 and 5 to grow ganja in the disputed land. When the trial Court has acquitted all the other accused, the question of convicting accused No.12, does not arise. It is also relevant to mention that the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 26. It is not the case of the prosecution that, the accused No.12 being the owner of this land, has grown ganja. It is the specific case of the prosecution that accused No.12 has allowed other accused to grow ganja in the disputed land. The trial Court has convicted accused No.12 only on the ground that he is the owner of the property. The names of other persons shown in the cultivator's column 12(2) are not the witnesses in this case, except PW11. PW11 has also not supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court has convicted accused No.12 only on the ground that he is the owner of the property. The names of other persons shown in the cultivator's column 12(2) are not the witnesses in this case, except PW11. PW11 has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent and convincing evidence to indicate that accused No.12 has knowingly permitted the use of this land to grow Ganja by the other accused, who are acquitted by the trial Court. Accordingly, the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused No.12/appellant for the offence under Section 25 of NDPS Act. Hence, I answer Point number 1 in Affirmative. Regarding Point No.2 27. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 05.02.2014 passed in Special Case No.43/2006 against accused No.12/appellant by the Principal Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Tumkur, is set aside. (iii) Accused No.12/appellant is acquitted for the offence under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. (iv) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused No.12/appellant shall be returned to him in accordance with law.