SUBHASH MAHADU MAHAJAN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
NDPS Act - Conviction for Cannabis Cultivation Set Aside Due to Lack of Evidence of Exclusive Possession and Failure to Prove Active Cultivation on Jointly Owned Land.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:10837
Decision Date: 07-03-2026
List of Laws
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Criminal Jurisprudence - Burden of Proof
- Facts: The appellant, Subhash Mahadu Mahajan, was accused of cultivating 35 cannabis plants weighing approximately 62-63 kg on a piece of agricultural land identified as Gat No. 29 in Jarandi Village. Following a raid based on secret information, the prosecution alleged that the appellant was present at the site, admitted to the cultivation, and pointed out the plants located near a well. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged this on the grounds that the land was joint property and there was no evidence of his exclusive possession or active cultivation.
- Procedural Posture: The case reached the Bombay High Court as a Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad, in Special Case No. 386/2022.
- Issue: Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person actually cultivating the cannabis plants, especially when the land was recorded in the names of multiple occupiers in the revenue records.
- Holding: No, the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts of cultivation and exclusive possession by the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that "cultivation" is the core ingredient of the offence under Section 20(a)(i). Revenue records (7/12 extract) showed that the land was occupied by four different individuals, not just the appellant. The Investigating Officer failed to verify which portion of the land was in the appellant’s actual possession or if a partition had occurred. Furthermore, the court noted that the alleged admission by the appellant to the police regarding the spot of incident is not admissible as a confession. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that mere presence on a property or joint ownership does not equate to "exclusive conscious possession" or proof of active cultivation. Shifting the burden to the accused to prove he was not cultivating would illegally place a negative burden on the defense. Consequently, the prosecution failed to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
🔒 For Members Only