Procedural irregularities under the NDPS Act do not vitiate a conviction unless they cause proven prejudice to the accused, and appellate courts may adopt a reformative sentencing approach by reducing the prison term to the period already undergone when cases have experienced significantly prolonged delays.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Both these appeals are being decided by this order as they arise out of the same occurrence and have been preferred separately by the different accused–convicts.

2. Reference to the facts however is being made from CRA-S-1725-2011 titled as “Balwinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab”.

3. The appeal(s) have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2011 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, in Sessions case No.349 dated 20.10.2005 (RT No. 352 of 23.02.2007) arising out of FIR bearing No.202 dated 01.06.2005, registered under Sections 15 of the Narcotics & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Lambi, whereby both the appellants had been convicted for commission of offenses under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced as under :

4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 01.06.2005, a police party headed by SI Gurbachan Singh, while on patrol duty, received secret information that Babu Singh and Balwinder Kumar were selling poppy husk near a kinnow orchard in Village Luhara. Acting upon the said information, the police party proceeded to the indicated spot and, after associating an independent witness, reached near the orchard. At the spot, two persons were found standing with a bicycle carrying a gunny bag on its carrier, from which poppy husk was visible. Both persons were apprehended and identified as Babu Singh and Balwinder Kumar. After informing them of their right of search and upon their consent, the police conducted a search of the bag, which led to the recovery of 30 kilograms of poppy husk, out of which 250 grams was separated as a sample and the remaining quantity was sealed. During personal search, cash amounts of Rs.265/- from Babu Singh and Rs.65/- from Balwinder Kumar were also recovered. Thereafter, both the accused were arrested in the present case.

5. Copies of the challan and other relevant documents were supplied to the accused in compliance with law. Upon consideration of the material on record, a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was found to be made out and charges were accordingly framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed trial.

6. On completion of the procedural compliances, parties led their respective evidence. The prosecution examined PW1 HC Lakhwinder Singh (recovery witness), PW2 HC Harpinder Singh, PW3 HC Nazar Singh (another recovery witness), PW4 HC Surjit Singh (MHC of the Police Station) and PW5 Gorjant Singh (Retired Inspector SHO) and thereafter closed its evidence.

7. The entire evidence was put to the petitioner and his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. He denied the same but led no evidence in defence.

8. On consideration of the evidence and hearing the arguments, the Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib convicted the appellants vide judgment dated 12.03.2011 and sentenced them as mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal.

9. Since, there was no representation on the behalf of the appellant(s) and the position remains unchanged today as well. Accordingly, Mr. Prateek Garg, Advocate, who is present in the Court is appointed as a Legal Aid Counsel to assist this Court on behalf of the appellant(s) in both the cases. After going through the paper-books