The court affirmed that possession of 201 kilograms of ganja established under the NDPS Act sufficed for conviction, confirming that procedural safeguards were adhered to despite the absence of independent witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., the accused persons, two in number, in Sessions Case No.2050/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-04 and Special Judge (NDPS), South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, challenge the judgement dated 27.02.2018 and order on sentence dated 28.02.2018, as per which they have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 24.07.2012at 10:30 P.M.,both the accused persons were found in possession of 201 Kilograms of ganja in front of Suraj Apartment, Main Road, Suraj Kund-Prahladpur Road in a three wheeler bearing no. HR-38-T- 2626, which was driven by accused no.1(A1) and accused no. 2(A2) was sitting in the same with the bags containing ganja. Hence, as per the chargesheet/final report dated 08.12.2015, the accused persons are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 20 , 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. On appearance of the accused persons before the trial court, copies of all the prosecution documents were supplied to them in compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. On 13.01.2016, Charge under Section 20 of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused persons, which was read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty.

4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 12 and Exhibits PW1/A, PW2/A-H, PW4/A-B, PW5/A-C, PW6/A-B, PW7/A, PW8/A, PW9/A-C, PW11/A-C, P1-P4 and Mark N1, N2 and X were marked.

5. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. Both the accused persons denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence and stated that they had been falsely implicated.

6. After questioning the accused persons under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C, compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Cr.P.C is seen made by the trial court. However, non- compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (SeeMoidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3)KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused persons have no case that non-compliance of Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to them.

7. No oral or documentary evidence were adduced by the accused persons.

8. The trial court, after hearing both sides and on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 27.02.2018 convicted both the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and vide order on sentence dated 28.02.2018 sentenced both the accused persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of ₹1,00,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. Aggrieved, the accused persons have preferred this appeal.

9. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment suffered from serious infirmities as the prosecution case was fraught with material contradictions and inconsistencies which went to the root