2000 (11) TMI 152 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against conviction of accused 2 and 3, and appeal by State against acquittal of accused 1 in C.C. No. 43/91.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the conviction of accused 2 and 3 and the acquittal of accused 1. The accused were charged with cultivating cannabis plants in specific locations between certain dates. The trial court convicted accused 2 and 3 under Section 8(b) read with 21(a) clause 1 of the NDPS Act. The main issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused cultivated the cannabis plants.

2. The evidence presented by the prosecution included the statements of accused 2 and 3. The defense argued that these statements were inadmissible under Article 20 Clause 3 of the Constitution of India. However, the court held that the statements were admissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution failed to provide independent evidence proving that accused 2 and 3 cultivated the plants.

3. The court emphasized that the crucial element to prove was cultivation, which was not adequately established by the prosecution. The confessions of the co-accused were insufficient to prove cultivation without corroborating evidence. The prosecution did not collect evidence to prove ownership of the land or actual cultivation by accused 2 and 3.

4. The court highlighted that the mere presence of accused 2 and 3 at the site of cultivation did not prove cultivation. The prosecution did not demonstrate that accused 2 and 3 had the exclusive possession of the fields or were the owners. The defense cited cases where lack of evidence of exclusive possession led to acquittals.

5. The prosecution relied on Section 35 of the NDPS Act, which presumes a culpable mental state of the accused. However, since cultivation was not proven, the presumption could not be invoked. The court concluded that accused 2 and 3 were not guilty of the offense and acquitted them. The appeal against the acquittal of accused 1 was dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the High Court of Judicature at Madras highlights the legal intricacies and reasoning behind the decision to convict or acquit the accused based on the evidence presented and the application of relevant legal provisions.