( 1 ) : the hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Special Court under the N. D. P. S. Act, 6th Court, Barasat in case No. N-1/1999 on 23. 08. 2001.

( 2 ) SHORTLY put, and shorn of details, the Prosecution case is that on 23. 12/1998 at about 7. 00 hrs. while accused Harun Rasid holding a steef can in hand was waiting in front of Premises No. 19, Sadhana Ausodhalaya road, Dakshin Dari, Calcutta-48 for selling heroin to different customers, acting on an intelligence a batch of Officers of NCB, EZU, Calcutta intercepted him, expressed their desire to search him as he was suspected to carry and sell heroin. On their offer for an option to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer intimating that a Gazetted Officer of NCB was with the raiding party, the accused agreed to be searched before the gazetted Officer of NCB. As a result of search after observing necessary formalities, 121 paper purias containing brown coloured powdered substance, a polythene packet containing similar brown coloured powdered substance, both believed to be heroin concealed in the said steel can and a sum of Rs. 190/- as sale proceeds kept in the wearing trousers were recovered. After testing of a small quantity of the said powdered substance taken out from purias and polythene packet with the U. N. O. Field Test Kit, it responded positive result. Samples were drawn for chemical test and articles recovered were inventorised and seized in presence of witnesses and Gazetted Officer. On a notice under Section 67 of the Act being served the accused in his voluntary statement admitted his guilt. Hence, the above accused was charged under Section 21 of the N. D. P. S. Act, 1985.

( 3 ) THE defence case, as suggested to P. Ws. and as contended by the accused person during his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , is that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and the names of witnesses to the alleged seizure are imaginary. He did not sign the consent letter. The alleged voluntary statement was recorded according to the will of the NCB Officers. The factum of the alleged incident is not true.

( 4 ) SIX witnesses were examined on behalf of the Prosecution, while none was examined on behalf of the defence, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials-on-record, the learned Court below found the above accused guilty under Section 21 of the N. D. P. S. Act, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to undergo R. I, for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. one lakh i. d. to R. I for one year.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of conviction and sentence, the above convict has preferred the present appeal.

( 6 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Court below was justified in passing the above order of conviction and sentence.

( 7 ) AT the outset, it is worthwhile to point out that the procedure for trial of a warrant case instituted otherwise than on police report, laid down in Sections 244-249 contained in Chapter-XIX of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 has not been followed. "the Code is a Code of Procedure and, like all procedural laws is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of endless technicalities. . . . . If an accused is tried by a competent Court, if he is told and clearly understands the nature of the offence which he is being tried, if the case against him is fully and fairly explained to him and he is afforded a full and fair opportunity of defending himself, then, provided there is "substantial" compliance with the outward forms of the law, mere mistakes in procedure, mere inconsequential errors and omissions in the trial are regarded as venal (sic. venial) by the Code and the trial is not vitiated unless the accused can show substantial prejudice", as was observed in Willie Slaney case reported in AIR 1956 SC 116 at 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document