The court reaffirmed that recovery of controlled substances establishes legal possession, resulting in statutory presumptions unless the accused can satisfactorily rebut these claims.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., the sole accused in Sessions Case No.95/2012 on the file of the Special Judge (NDPS-02), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, challenges the judgement dated 06.02.2016 and order on sentence dated 12.02.2016, as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 21 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 24.07.2012at 12:45 P.M., the accused was found in possession of 275 grams of heroin in front of Bishnoi Dharamshala, Bela Road, Delhi. Hence, as per the chargesheet/final report dated 02.09.2012, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act.

3. On appearance of the accused before the trial court, copies of all the prosecution documents were supplied to him in compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. On 12.12.2012, Charge under Section 21 of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused, which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 9 and marked Exhibits PW1/A-C, PW1/H, PW2/A-E, PW3/A-C, PW4/A, PW6/A-F, PW8/A-C, PW9/Z and PA. Nodal officers from Cellular companies, namely, CWs. 1 to 4 were examined as Court Witnesses.

5. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He stated that he had been falsely implicated. According to him, nothing was recovered from his possession and that all the proceedings were conducted at the police station where his signatures were forcibly taken on blank or semi-printed papers. On 24.07.2012, PW2 Om Prakash, Head Constable, called him to Shastri Park at about 12:00 to 12:30 P.M. When he reached there, PW7 Kheta Ram, Constable and PW6 Mukesh, Head Constable came. After about 2 to 3 minutes, PW8 Sunil Jain, Sub-Inspector, arrived in his car and told him that "tu mere aadmi namely Rehmat ko fasana chahta he , vo mera khas aadmi he, ab me tujhe maja chakhata hu". Thereafter, he was taken to the police station. The police switched off his mobile (9711801221) and implicated him in this false case. The police also called his wife and demanded money.

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 him.

7. In support of the defence case, DWs. 1 to 7 were examined on behalf of the accused and marked Exhibits DW4/A-D, DW6/A-B, DW7/A-C and Mark A were marked.

8. The trial court, after hearing both sides and on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 06.02.2016 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 21 (c) of the NDPC Act and vide order on sentence dated 12.02.2016 sentenced him to u