Cultivation under the NDPS Act requires proof of actual cultivation; mere presence or field work is not enough.

Statements recorded from the accused were treated as admissible and were not excluded merely on the ground of self-incrimination, but they could sustain the prosecution only if independently sufficient and corroborated. On the substantive charge under the NDPS Act, the prosecution had to prove actual cultivation of cannabis plants by the accused; mere presence in the field, guarding, watering, or doing coolie work was insufficient. As no independent proof of exclusive possession, ownership, or actual cultivation was established, the statutory presumption could not be invoked without the foundational fact. The convictions of the second and third accused were set aside and the acquittal of the first accused was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused statements could be relied on in light of the constitutional safeguard against self-incrimination; (ii) Whether the prosecution proved cultivation of cannabis plants by the accused so as to sustain conviction under the NDPS Act.

Issue (i): Whether the accused statements could be relied on in light of the constitutional safeguard against self-incrimination.

Analysis: The statements recorded from the accused were treated as admissible in evidence. The safeguard against compelled self-incrimination was not applied to exclude them merely because they were used against the accused. However, admissibility did not by itself establish guilt unless the statements were sufficient and supported by material particulars.

Conclusion: The statements were not excluded on the ground of self-incrimination, but they could be acted upon only if independently sufficient and corroborated.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved cultivation of cannabis plants by the accused so as to sustain conviction under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The decisive ingredient was cultivation, and the prosecution had to prove that the accused themselves cultivated the plants. Mere presence at the field, or the role of guarding, watering, or doing coolie work, did not amount to cultivation. The evidence showed no independent proof of exclusive possession, ownership, or actual cultivation by the accused. The presumption under the NDPS Act could not be invoked unless the foundational fact of the act was first established.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove cultivation by the second and third accused, so their conviction and sentence could not stand. The State appeal against acquittal of the first accused also failed.

Final Conclusion: The convictions of the second and third accused were set aside and they were acquitted, while the acquittal of the first accused was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction for cultivation under the NDPS Act requires proof that the accused actually cultivated the cannabis plants, and mere presence, guarding, or coolie work at the field is insufficient; presumptions under the Act cannot operate without proof of the foundational act.

---