( 1 ) THIS appeal was accepted by me on the day the arguments were concluded and the appellant was acquitted on April 23, 1997 by a short judgment stating therein that the detailed reasons will be given latter. The said detailed reasons are furnished in this judgment: The appellant Matloob was arrested by Police Station, Jama Masjid, Delhi in case FIR No. 191/92 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Durgs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in brief, the NDPS Act), on the allegations that on September 7,1992 at about 7. 10 p. m. at Service Road, Gate Mazar Shiekh Kalim Ullah, within the jurisdiction of P. S. Jama Masjid, he was found in possession of 3. 750 kgs. of Charas without any licence. After completion of investigation and receipt of the CFSL report the appellant was sent up for trial, charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Art, tried and convicted of sentence, also dated May 2, 1995 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1. 5 lakhs, in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The conviction and sentence had both been recorded by Mr. B. L. Garg. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

( 2 ) THE appellant preferred this appeal from jail Since he was- undefended in the appeal, the Court appointed Mr. P. R. Thakur, Advocate as the Amicus Curiae.

( 3 ) I have heard Mr. P-R. Thakur, Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Neelam Grover, Advocate for the State. Learned Counsel for the appellant raised many pleas,made many submisions both on law and fact sout of what the most important two are as under :

( 4 ) FIRSTLY, the appellant remained unrepresented and undefended by any Advocate during the trial until Public Witness PWs 1 to 4 had been examined and discharged on May 24,1993. Thereafter on the appellant s representation to the effect that he was too poor to engage a Counsel, he was provided the services of one Mr. D. P. Chopra, Advacate as the Amicus Curiae on November 18,1993. On that very day, the Trial Court proceeded to examine Public Witness PWs 5 and 6 and after their examination, the said witnesses were discharged. FW 6 Chander Bhan, Head Constable was a witness to the recovery and as such, a very material witness. The said Amicus Curiae was not afforded an opportunity to acquaint himself with the nuts and bolts of the case before the two significant witnesses Public Witness PWs 5 and 6 could be examined. Counsel for the appellant, Mr. P. R. Thakur contended that in a serious case as the one under NDPS Act where the Legislature has prescribed a minimum imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. I lakh on conviction, it was incumbent on the learned Trial Court in terms of Section 304 of Code of Criminal Procedure to have assigned a defence Counsel to the appellant at the expense of the State. Mr. Thakur referred to the judgment in Surinder Kumar v. The State, reported as 1996 (1) CC Cases 221 (HC) wherein Delhi High Court (Jaspal Singh,j.) held after referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hussain Ara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, reported as AIR 1979 SC 1369 and Khatri v. State of Bihar, reported as 1981 Cr. L J. 470, that conviction recorded without provision of free legal service was vitiated. Mr. Thakur also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukh Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, reported as 1986 Cr. L. J. 1084 where it was re-emphasised by the Supreme Court that the entitlement to free legal aid was not dependent on the accused making an application to that effect and that the Court was obliged to inform the accused of his right to obtain free legal aid.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the State contended that the Trial Court did appoint the Amicus Curiae for the appellant on November 18, 1993 and it could not be said that the appellant had been deprived of his constitutional right to have free legal aid. She further contended that only formal witnesses Public Witness PWs 1 to 4 had ear