JUDGMENT: The appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as the accused was tried before the learned Special Judge, E.C. Court, Pudukottai in C.C.No. 170 of 1997 for an offence punishable under Sec.20-B(1) read with Sec.8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘the Act’) on the allegation that at about 11.30 a.m. on 26.2.1997 he was found in possession of 3 kgs. of canabis valued at Rs.6,000. 2. To prove the above charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and the learned Special Judge accepted the prosecution case, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 with the default sentence of one month. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed. 3. The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from the oral and documentary evidence, can be briefly summarised as follows: On 26.2.1997 at about 9.30 a.m. P.W.2 on receipt of information from an informer, left the police station and reached Tolgate bus stop at Pudukottai at about 10. a.m. At 11 a.m. he saw the accused coming to the bus stop with a green colour plastic bag in his hand. The police informer pointed the accused to P.W.2. Thereafter P.W.2 introduced himself and questioned the accused. He also told him that he suspects that he is carrying canabis and that he wanted to effect a search. He informed the accused of his right under Sec.50 of the Act to be searched either before the Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused thereafter informed P.W.2 that he need not be taken to either of the officers mentioned by him and he could be searched then and there. The accused was thereafter searched. Ex.P-2 is the notice regarding search. When he searched the bag, it contained canabis weighing 3 kgs. They were seized under a mahazar Ex.P-1. The accused was arrested, brought to the police station and produced before P.W.3 the Inspector, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau. A crime was also registered in Crime No.20 of 1997 and the material objects were sent to Court with the request to forward them for analysis. After completing the investigation the final report was filed against the accused. 4. The accused was arrested, brought to the police station and produced before P.W.3 the Inspector, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau. A crime was also registered in Crime No.20 of 1997 and the material objects were sent to Court with the request to forward them for analysis. After completing the investigation the final report was filed against the accused. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the accused is entitled for an acquittal since he was not given legal aid to defend himself in the case. In support of his plea he relies upon the entries in the docket sheet. 5. I have perused the docket sheet which shows that though a counsel was appointed by the Legal Aid Committee to defend the accused, the said advocate did not appear for one hearing. When P.W.1 was in the box, the accused was asked to cross examine as the advocate appointed by the Legal Aid was not present. The accused put two suggestions to P.W.1. When P.Ws.2 and 3 were in the box, as the counsel was not present, they were not cross-examined. To make the matters worse, the learned Special Judge in the preamble of the judgment has mentioned that after hearing the arguments of the counsel and the public prosecutor he is delivering the judgment though the docket sheet shows that the counsel, even on the day when the arguments were heard, was not present to advance his arguments. It is not known as to how the learned Special Judge made such a statement in the judgment which is incorrect as could be seen from the docket. The accused was not defended by the counsel, which is his fundamental right guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India and it had been pointed out time and again that it is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure to a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the Court’s process that he should have legal service available to him. When an accused person is placed in peril of his personal liberty by reason of being accused of an offence which if proved will entail imprisonment the Court should see that he is defended properly by a counsel and cannot dispose of the case in haste. When an accused person is placed in peril of his personal liberty by reason of being accused of an offence which if proved will entail imprisonment the Court should see that he is defended properly by a counsel and cannot dispose of the case in haste. The learned Special Judge in the case in hand, in my view, acted in haste without even trying to get another advocate appointed by the Legal Aid Committee to defend the accused when the counsel initially appointed had not chosen to appear to defend. The entries in the docket clearly show that inspite of the fact that the counsel was appointed, he did not appear in Court and under the circumstances the learned Special Judge ought to have taken steps to address the Legal Aid Committee to see that another counsel is appointed to defend the accused, which he failed to do, as a result of which P.Ws.2 and 3 were not cross examined though they are main witnesses for the prosecution as they speak about the seizure and registration of the crime. In my view, great prejudice was caused to the appellant, as he did not get proper defence. 6. The Supreme Court in Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 991, held that if there is violation of fundamental right of the accused under Art.21, the trial must accordingly held to be vitiated on account of a fatal constitutional infirmity. Accordingly the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant must be set aside. I, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. The appeal is allowed, the accused is acquitted and the fine amount, if paid, will be refunded.