https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45897 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. en-us Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:56:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45897 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45897