Narendra Kumar Jain, J.

1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2001 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted from the charge of the offence under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

2. On the basis of the secret information an FIR, was registered on 21.03.1997 by PW1 Dhanna Lal stating therein that accused Ghasi has cultivated contraband in his agricultural filed without any license and on the spot, contraband with leaves were recovered.

3. During the trial of the case PW11 Kanwar Prasad, Patwari was examined on behalf of the prosecution, who admitted that the disputed agricultural land was recorded in the name of Bhoja and a copy of Jamabandi (document of title) was exhibited in the case as Exhibit PI4. After the death of Bhoja the land was mutated in the names of Mst. Sundar wife of Bhoja, Ghasi. Pratap and Chanda sons of Bhoja. PW11 Kanwar Prasad in his main examination stated that on the basis of Exhibit PI 4 he cannot say that who was cultivating the land in dispute, from where the contraband was seized. He admitted that he does not have any record to show that who was actually cultivating the land in dispute.

4. No other documentary evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove the exclusive possession or ownership of the land, in dispute of the accused. The other reasons have also been given for acquittal of the accused-respondent.

5. After considering the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties in the light of the finding of the learned trial Court, I do not find this case to be fit one to grant leave to appeal.

The application for leave to appeal is accordingly rejected.