Bail – Regular Bail – Heinous Offence – Delay in Trial – Article 21 – Petitioner arrested on 03.05.2018 and charged under Sections 302, 307, 353, 201 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act for firing upon government officials executing NGT demolition orders, resulting in death of two officials – Prosecution unable to complete evidence despite lapse of over seven years and eight months – Application under Section 311 CrPC filed at stage of arguments and witnesses recalled but not produced – Held: Delay in trial entitles petitioner to bail notwithstanding gravity of offence; petition allowed [Paras 2, 21–22].

Speedy Trial – Fundamental Right – Article 21 – Right to speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Right commences from the stage of arrest and continues through investigation, trial, appeal and revision – Burden lies on the prosecution to justify and explain the delay – Inordinate delay in conclusion of trial entitles the accused to bail irrespective of the gravity of the offence [Paras 10–20].

Bail – Parameters – Nature of Offence vs. Prolonged Incarceration – While gravity of offence is a relevant factor in bail matters, the State cannot detain an accused indefinitely without proving guilt – When prosecution is unable to complete evidence within a reasonable time, the right to speedy trial overrides the stringency of the offence – Constitutional mandate of Article 21 prevails over bar created by gravity of crime [Paras 8–9, 21–22].

Pre-Trial Detention – Constitutional Limits – Detaining under-trial prisoners for an indefinite period violates Article 21 – Long incarceration and unlikely prospect of early conclusion of trial justify grant of bail – Stringent statutory provisions curtailing bail are premised on assumption that trial will be concluded expeditiously; failure of State to ensure expeditious trial cannot be used to perpetuate incarceration [Paras 10–16, 19].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety – Conditions imposed including non-intimidation of witnesses, attendance at each hearing, restriction on leaving address without informing police, surrender of passport and furnishing of mobile/social media details – Bail liable to cancellation on violation of conditions – Observations not to bear on merits of the case.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Unsubstantiated Allegations in Written Statement – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Appellant-husband sought divorce on ground of mental cruelty – Trial Court dismissed the suit – On appeal, held: allegations levelled by the respondent-wife in her written statement, including attempt to kill their second daughter, illicit affair of the husband with another lady, and incitement of third parties to make immoral proposals to the wife, were wholly unsubstantiated – Allegation of attempt to kill daughter on February 15, 2019 demolished by wife's own admission in cross-examination that she had not returned to her matrimonial home after December 15, 2018, three months prior to such alleged incident – No corroborative evidence, oral or documentary, adduced for the alleged illicit affair – Testimony of wife (DW-1) and her mother (DW-2) stood in stark contradiction to each other – Reckless, defamatory and unsubstantiated allegations in pleadings against the spouse and his family, including jeopardising the husband's service in the CISF (a disciplined force), constitute mental cruelty – Trial Court erred in not taking this component of cruelty into account – Appellant entitled to decree of divorce on this ground alone [Paras 27–36].

Mental Cruelty – Plaint Allegations by Husband – Not Substantiated – Adverse Inference – Allegations by the appellant-husband of the wife refusing to do household work, ill-behaving with in-laws and perpetrating cruelty during her stay at the matrimonial home were vague and unaccompanied by specific dates or instances – PW-2, an acquaintance of the husband, admitted he learnt of the facts the day before deposing, relegating his testimony to hearsay – None of the family members of the husband, who would have been the best witnesses, were produced, warranting adverse inference against the appellant on the plaint case of cruelty during cohabitation – Trial Court justified in rejecting plaint allegations for want of independent corroboration [Paras 24–26].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Not a Prerequisite for Divorce – The learned Trial Judge erred in holding that non-filing of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was indicative of lack of bona fides on the part of the husband – Held: there is no requirement in law that a party must initiate restitution proceedings as a precondition for seeking divorce – No evidence of animus revertendi on the part of the respondent-wife during the entire period of separation since December 15, 2018 [Para 38].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Independent Ground for Divorce – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Parties had been separated for over eight years since December 2018 – Both parties stated during arguments that they did not wish to resume conjugal life – No attempt made by either party to unite during this period – Held: a marital relationship that has only become bitter and acrimonious over the years inflicts cruelty on both sides; keeping the facade of such a broken marriage alive does injustice to both parties – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage itself spells cruelty to both parties and is a ground for dissolution under Section 13(1)(ia) – Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 17 SCC 433, followed [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated December 6, 2023 of the Additional District Judge, Khatra, in Matrimonial Suit No. 07 of 2020 set aside – Suit decreed – Marriage between the parties dissolved by divorce – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction – Proof of Possession – Second Appeal – Plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction dismissed by trial Court for failure to prove lawful possession – First appellate Court reversed, erroneously relying on recitals in an earlier suit (O.S.No.678/1988) and drawing perverse inferences from revenue records – High Court held that the first appellate Court's findings were contrary to evidence and pleadings – Oral and documentary evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 wholly insufficient to establish possession as on the date of filing of the suit – Second appeal allowed – Judgment of first appellate Court set aside – Trial Court's dismissal of suit restored [Paras 19, 25, 29, 30, 31].

"Suit for Bare Injunction — Plaintiff Must Prove Physical Exclusive Possession as on Date of Suit"

Permanent Injunction – Proof of Possession – Bare Injunction Suit – In a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff must establish that as on the date of filing the suit, he was in lawful and physical exclusive possession of the suit property and that the defendant attempted to disturb such possession – The plaintiffs failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove possession over the plaint schedule property – P.W.1 (plaintiff No.2) had no personal knowledge about the alleged Nazarana payment or the alleged partition between Mukkaiah and Bheemaiah, being only 10 years old at the time of Mukkaiah's death – P.W.2 and P.W.3 also failed to speak to possession – No patta, no revenue records bearing the suit survey number, and no credible witness examined to prove the alleged oral partition [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 28].

"Tax Receipts Not Conclusive Proof of Possession — Revenue Records Must Specifically Reference Suit Survey Number"

Evidence – Tax Receipts – Revenue Records – Proof of Possession – The plaintiffs relied on tax receipts (Ex.A-4, Ex.A-10) to prove possession, but the suit schedule survey number and extent were not mentioned in those receipts – Held: Payment of tax receipts is not a conclusive proof of possession of property — Tax receipts show only that a person paid land revenue and not that he was in actual physical possession of the specific suit property — In the absence of any document linking the plaintiffs to R.S.No.394 specifically, the receipts are of no evidentiary value for the purpose of the suit [Para 24].

"Recitals in Earlier Suit Not an Admission of Plaintiffs' Possession — First Appellate Court Drew Perverse Inferences"

Evidence – Admissions – Prior Suit Proceedings – Perverse Findings – The first appellate Court drew the erroneous conclusion that since the defendants in an earlier suit (O.S.No.678/1988) claimed possession of only Ac.16.00 cents against third parties, they were impliedly admitting the plaintiffs' possession over the remaining Ac.16.00 cents – Held: The recital in that earlier plaint that the Revenue Authorities had by mistake recorded only Ac.16.00 cents against the defendants and the remaining Ac.16.00 cents as in the name of Bheemaiah cannot be construed as an admission of Bheemaiah's possession — Findings of the first appellate Court on this point were perverse — Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 are of no use to prove plaintiffs' possession [Paras 22, 23, 26].

"When Title is Disputed, Suit for Bare Injunction Without Seeking Declaration is Not Maintainable"

Suit for Injunction – Title in Dispute – Declaration Required – The defendants disputed the title of the plaintiffs in the written statement, denying that the alleged partition between Mukkaiah and Bheemaiah ever took place — Held: Where the title of the plaintiff is in dispute or under a cloud and the defendant asserts title, the plaintiff is required to file a suit for declaration of title along with the consequential relief of injunction — A suit for bare injunction simpliciter will not lie in such circumstances — The plaintiffs neither sought declaration of title nor amended the relief clause during pendency of the suit — Ananthula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. applied [Para 27].

Decision: Second appeal allowed — Judgment and decree dated 27.02.2006 in A.S.No.25 of 1999 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, set aside — Judgment and decree of the trial Court (I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur) dismissing the suit restored — Each party to bear their own costs [Para 31].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Bribe Demand and Acceptance – Hostile Complainants – Conviction Upheld – Appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena, working as Assistant Engineer, JVVNL, inspected electricity meters at complainants' premises on 29.01.2016 and imposed VCR penalty of Rs. 80,000 — subsequently demanded illegal gratification for settlement — ACB trap organised on 02.02.2016 — tainted amount of Rs. 5,500/- recovered from the conscious possession of appellant No. 2 Hemraj @ Foru, who acted as conduit on directions of appellant No. 1 — phenolphthalein test of hands and pocket of appellant No. 2 positive — both appellants present in the same room at time of trap — complainant PW-8 Ramphool turned hostile and complainant PW-13 Kailash resiled in cross-examination — Held: Conviction sustained on the basis of electronic evidence, trap proceedings and circumstantial evidence — appeal dismissed [Paras 1–3, 59–65].

"Electronic Evidence – Voice Recording – Admissibility – Section 65-B Certificate – Demand Established"

Prevention of Corruption Act – Electronic Evidence – Admissibility – Voice Recording – The prosecution relied upon digitally recorded conversations of 01.02.2016 and 02.02.2016 capturing demand and direction for acceptance of illegal gratification by appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena — transcripts proved as Ex. P-11 and Ex. P-15 — certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 produced as Ex. P-38 by PW-14 Tarunkant Somani, leader of trap team — appellant No. 1 did not dispute voice recording during trial nor challenged its authenticity in cross-examination — appellants refused to furnish voice samples despite lawful notice — Held: Adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 drawn against appellants for withholding best evidence — voice recording admissible and demand legally established — hostile testimony of complainants does not demolish prosecution case when electronic evidence independently proves demand [Paras 28–35, 37].

"Demand and Acceptance – Proof by Electronic and Circumstantial Evidence – Hostile Complainant"

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance – Sine Qua Non – Proof – Demand is sine qua non for constituting offence under Prevention of Corruption Act — demand can be proved by electronic or circumstantial evidence and not necessarily by direct testimony of complainant — conviction can be sustained even if complainant turns hostile, provided demand is otherwise established — in the present case, transcription of voice recordings clearly disclosed demand by appellant No. 1 accompanied by threat of VCR penalty — trap laid immediately after recorded conversation — tainted amount recovered corresponds exactly to amount discussed in voice recording — both accused found present together — chain of incriminating circumstances complete and unbroken — Held: Demand and acceptance duly proved — presumption under Section 20 of the Act operative — burden to rebut not discharged by appellants [Paras 18–19, 29, 36, 57–59].

"Acceptance Through Middleman – Section 8 – Private Person as Conduit – Criminal Conspiracy"

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 8 – Private Person – Acceptance as Conduit – Appellant No. 2 Hemraj @ Foru, a private person, accepted bribe amount of Rs. 5,500/- from complainant pursuant to directions of appellant No. 1 Prithvilal Meena — tainted money recovered from his trouser pocket — phenolphthalein test positive — corroborated by FSL Report Ex. P-23 and testimonies of PW-9, PW-10, PW-14, PW-15, PW-16 and PW-17 — Held: Acceptance of illegal gratification through agent or middleman is deemed acceptance by public servant himself — personal recovery from public servant not indispensable — Section 8 of the Act squarely covers private person acting as conduit — concerted action of both appellants constitutes criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC — Section 8 and 120-B IPC proved against appellant No. 2 [Paras 40–51].

"Prosecution Sanction – Application of Mind – Valid Sanction"

Prevention of Corruption Act – Prosecution Sanction – Validity – PW-11 Sunil Mehta, sanctioning authority, deposed that entire investigation record was perused before according sanction — cross-examination did not show non-application of mind — all relevant documents considered — Held: Sanction order reflects due application of mind and is valid [Para 52].

"Shadow Witness – Partial Overheard Conversation – Trap Proceedings – Practical Realities"

Trap Proceedings – Shadow Witness – Partial Overhearing – Defence argument that voice recording findings are unsafe as shadow witness did not overhear entire conversation — Held: It is neither legally mandated nor practically feasible for a shadow witness to overhear every word — accused may insist on private conversation or meeting in restricted area — close proximity of shadow witness may arouse suspicion and frustrate trap — what is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt and not proof through any particular mode — trap proceedings cannot be judged by artificial laboratory standards [Paras 38–39].

"Panchsheel Test – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Complete"

Circumstantial Evidence – Panchsheel Test – Sufficiency – All circumstances collectively establish complete and unbroken chain of evidence — electronic evidence, recovery of tainted amount, positive phenolphthalein test, documentary evidence in form of red diary and handwritten slip, presence of both accused together and failure to rebut presumption under Section 20 — chain of circumstances consistent only with guilt of appellants and excludes every possible hypothesis of innocence — Held: Panchsheel test as propounded in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 satisfied — conviction affirmed [Paras 62–64].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota in Sessions Case No. 10/2016 dated 06.07.2019 affirmed — appellants directed to surrender forthwith to serve remaining sentence.

Town Planning – Lapse of Reservation – Section 127 MRTP Act – PIL Dismissed – Petitioners challenged the State communication dated 21.09.2015 declaring reservations on subject lands lapsed – Respondent No. 5 had issued purchase notice dated 04.02.2008 under Section 127 of MRTP Act followed by reminder dated 03.06.2009 – Municipal council's general body on 07.03.2012 considered acquisition cost but expressed inability to acquire – No statutory steps towards acquisition were taken within the prescribed period – Second Revised Development Plan came into force on 10.02.2019 safeguarding reservations for public amenities elsewhere – Held: PIL dismissed – Lapse of reservation upheld – Reservation on subject land cannot be insisted upon [Paras 1, 25, 26].

Service of Purchase Notice – Substantial Compliance – Section 127 MRTP Act – Petitioner contended that purchase notice dated 04.02.2008 was never served on the municipal council and hence the statutory period for lapse never commenced – Municipal council's general body itself deliberated on the acquisition cost pursuant to the notice forwarded through the State Government – Held: Once the purchase notice is brought within the knowledge of the planning authority through the governmental channel, placed before the general body and acted upon, the requirement of service is satisfied in substance – Planning authority cannot defeat Section 127 by taking a stand of "no service" in the teeth of its own records [Paras 12, 13, 14].

Steps Towards Acquisition – Meaning of "Steps" – Mere resolutions or correspondence expressing inability to acquire due to financial constraints do not constitute "steps" towards acquisition within the meaning of Section 127 of the MRTP Act – Steps must be real steps leading to statutory declaration under acquisition law – Municipal council's resolution seeking grants is an explanation of inability, not a statutory step – Held: No steps towards acquisition were taken within the stipulated period, resulting in lapse by operation of law [Paras 16, 17].

Municipal Council's Conduct – Subsequent Resolutions – General body resolution dated 09.12.2015 recording that reservations had lapsed and that land was not required for acquisition – Municipal council's subsequent institutional conduct of treating reservation as lapsed, declining acquisition, and acting consistently with post-lapse situation precludes it from re-agitating the foundational plea of "no notice" – Earlier denial of receipt of notice cannot be treated as conclusive in light of subsequent admissions and conduct [Paras 15, 18].

PIL Jurisdiction – Public Amenities – Revised Development Plan – Petitioner's contention that reservation for public amenities must be maintained on the very same parcel rejected – Development plans are not immutable; MRTP Act contains provisions for revision and modification – Once competent planning authority revises the plan and safeguards public purpose reservations elsewhere, petitioner cannot insist as a matter of right that public purpose must remain pegged only to subject land – Urban planning is an evolving arrangement balancing public needs with legal limitations on sterilization of land [Paras 20, 21].

Mala Fides – Colourable Exercise of Power – Allegations of mala fides must be pleaded with particulars and supported by cogent material – Record shows State sought reports, municipal council deliberated, cited financial incapacity, and communication was issued accordingly – No material found to sustain a finding of mala fides – What emerges is a long period of inaction in acquisition, which is the precise circumstance Section 127 of the MRTP Act addresses [Para 22].

Decision: PIL dismissed – Communication dated 21.09.2015 upheld – Lapse of reservation under Section 127 of the MRTP Act held to be legal and valid – Civil Application No. 1034 of 2018 also stands disposed of – Rs. 25,000/- out of deposited amount of Rs. 50,000/- directed to be refunded to petitioners; remaining Rs. 25,000/- to be credited to High Court Legal Services Authority [Paras 25, 26, 27, 28].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Cruelty – Acquittal – Accused charged under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for alleged harassment and dowry demands leading to the suicide by hanging of his wife Rekhaben on 24.04.2007 – Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – State preferred appeal under Section 378 CrPC – Held: No infirmity in the acquittal; appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 19–21].

Abetment of Suicide – Ingredients – Section 306 IPC – For conviction under Section 306 IPC, prosecution must establish an active role of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding by the accused – Mere harassment or domestic discord does not ipso facto constitute abetment – There must be a direct causal link and proximate connection between the accused's conduct and the deceased's decision to commit suicide – Prosecution failed to prove any positive act or mens rea proximate to the time of suicide [Paras 9.1–9.8].

Instigation – Legal Threshold – Instigation connotes an active suggestion or incitement of such intensity that it operates upon the mind of the victim and pushes her toward suicide – A word uttered in anger without intending consequences to follow cannot constitute instigation – Accused must have created circumstances leaving the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide – Not established in the present case [Paras 9.5, 9.6, 10, 10.1].

Prosecution Witnesses – Unreliable and Contradictory Testimony – Key witnesses including the complainant (P.W.7), father (P.W.10), mother (P.W.11), sister (P.W.12) and brother-in-law (P.W.13) either turned hostile, gave contradictory versions, or admitted ignorance of material facts – Son of deceased (P.W.9) categorically denied any harassment or cruelty by the accused – Neighbour statements recorded by P.W.6 revealed no evidence of harassment [Paras 8.5–8.13].

Motive – Extra-Marital Affair and Dowry Demand – Prosecution alleged accused had an extra-marital affair and demanded dowry of Rs.41,000/- at the time of marriage – No witness could identify the alleged other woman – Material witnesses admitted they were unaware of the personal life of the accused and deceased at Mundra – Motive not conclusively proved [Paras 8.1, 8.9–8.12].

Acquittal Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate court has full power to review evidence in an acquittal appeal but must bear in mind the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused – High Court should not interfere where the trial court's view is reasonable and plausible and two reasonable conclusions are possible – Interference warranted only where judgment suffers from patent perversity or misreading of material evidence [Paras 13–18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent-accused under Sections 498A and 306 IPC confirmed – No infirmity found in the trial court's judgment – Record and proceedings remitted to the concerned trial court.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Allegations of Forced Religious Conversion – Petitioner, Principal of a school, sought quashing of FIR alleging she pressured the complainant teacher to convert from Hinduism to Christianity and terminated her services upon refusal – Petitioner contended FIR was malicious and motivated by service dispute after termination of complainant – Held: Allegations in FIR and statement of complainant recorded under Section 164 CrPC prima facie disclose commission of offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 – At the stage of quashing, Court cannot examine reliability of allegations – Petition dismissed [Paras 8, 12–14].

Criminal Law – Exercise of Inherent Powers – Scope of Interference in Investigation – High Court reiterated that power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases – Criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the initial stage where FIR discloses a cognizable offence – Court cannot undertake enquiry into the truthfulness of allegations or evaluate defence such as existence of service dispute at the quashing stage [Paras 8, 11].

Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 – Offences of Conversion by Inducement or Pressure – Complainant alleged that she was repeatedly pressured to convert her religion and was subjected to harassment and termination upon refusal – Material collected during investigation and statement recorded before Magistrate supported allegations – Held: Allegations are serious and sufficient to put the petitioner on trial – Defence regarding service dispute may be considered during trial but cannot justify quashing of FIR at this stage [Paras 9, 12–13].

Decision: Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – FIR and criminal proceedings allowed to continue – Petitioner at liberty to establish innocence during trial.

Money Laundering – Freezing of Bank Accounts – Section 17(1A), PMLA – Proceeds of Crime – Respondent Zo Pvt Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Winzo Games Pvt Ltd, had its bank accounts frozen under Section 17(1A) of the PMLA on 30.12.2025 – Enforcement Case Information Report registered on the basis of multiple FIRs alleging cheating, forgery, conspiracy and fraud in relation to real money gaming operations of the parent entity – Winzo alleged to have generated proceeds of crime of Rs.3,522.05 Crores – Unsecured loans of Rs.255 Crores advanced by Winzo to respondent-Zo, of which Rs.231.20 Crores outstanding – Freezing order passed in respect of assets of approximately Rs.690 Crores – Single Judge relegated respondent to Adjudicating Authority but directed payment of salaries from frozen accounts – Appellant challenged only the direction for payment of salaries [Paras 3-6].

"Proceeds of Crime Cannot Be Presumed" – Section 2(1)(u), PMLA – Strict Construction – Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) – Proceeds of crime must be strictly linked to a predicate offence – Only property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence can constitute proceeds of crime – Enforcement Directorate cannot proceed against a person for money laundering on mere assumption that property recovered must be proceeds of crime without a registered offence or pending inquiry – In the instant case, the sole surviving FIR involved only Rs.42 Lakhs; the contention that the entire amount in the accounts of the respondent represented proceeds of crime was held to be unacceptable [Paras 29-36].

Freezing Orders – Adjudicating Authority – No Power to Order Partial Defreeze – Section 8, PMLA – Admitted position before the Court was that the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the PMLA had no power to issue interim directions or to order payments from amounts frozen under Section 17(1A) – In such circumstances, the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge in directing payment of salaries, while relegating the respondent to its statutory remedy, was neither perverse nor unwarranted – Reliance placed by appellant on Mangal Rajendra Kamthe (supra) distinguished on facts, as in that case the statutory authority had powers to deal with the situation, unlike the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA [Paras 36-40].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Direction of Single Judge permitting payment of salaries from frozen accounts upheld – Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the PMLA having no power to grant partial defreeze for salary payment, the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge was justified – No order as to costs – All pending interlocutory applications disposed of [Para 41].

NDPS Act – Cultivation of Cannabis – Proof of Possession and Control – Appellant convicted for cultivating cannabis plants on agricultural land jointly owned by multiple persons – No evidence to establish that appellant alone was in possession or actively cultivating the land – Failure of prosecution to prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted [Paras 32, 35, 46].

Criminal Law – Burden of Proof – Reasonable Doubt – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and cannot shift burden on accused to prove non-involvement – Mere presence or admission before police insufficient – Held: Absence of clear evidence linking accused to cultivation creates reasonable doubt [Paras 44–45].

NDPS Act – Concept of “Cultivation” – Requires conscious act of planting, nurturing or tending cannabis plants – No material showing active involvement of appellant in cultivation – Held: Essential ingredient of offence not established [Paras 34–35].

Evidence – Joint Ownership of Land – 7/12 extract showed multiple co-owners – Investigating agency failed to ascertain who was actually cultivating specific portion – Non-examination of relevant witnesses and lack of verification fatal to prosecution case [Paras 25–26, 31].

Confession – Statement before Police – Alleged admission by accused pointing out spot cannot be sole basis of conviction without corroboration and compliance with legal procedure – Held: Such statement insufficient to establish guilt [Para 44].

Presumption under NDPS Act – Section 54 – Can arise only after prosecution proves foundational facts such as possession and control – In absence thereof, presumption not applicable [Para 44].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 20(a)(i) NDPS Act – Directed to be released forthwith – Fine, if paid, to be refunded.