Misdescription of narcotics conviction provision caused no prejudice where seizure, forensic proof and notice of commercial possession were established.

Evidence of seizure witnesses, customs officials and the forensic report established interception of the truck, recovery of 116 packets of ganja from a concealed cavity, and the appellant's presence as driver. The charge had clearly put the accused on notice of alleged illegal possession of commercial quantity, so the misdescription of the conviction provision caused no prejudice to the defence. In these circumstances, the conviction could be treated under the correct narcotic statute clause while maintaining the sentence, and the appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for possession of commercial quantity of ganja from a concealed cavity in a truck was sustainable, and whether the conviction could be treated as one under the correct clause of the narcotic statute without causing prejudice to the accused.

Analysis: The evidence of the seizure witnesses and customs established interception of the truck, recovery of 116 packets of ganja from a secret cavity, and the appellant's presence as the driver. The forensic report confirmed that the seized samples were ganja. The record also showed that the charge had clearly put the appellant on notice that he was alleged to be in illegal possession of commercial quantity. In these circumstances, the misdescription of the conviction provision did not affect the defence or cause prejudice, and the conviction could be treated under the appropriate statutory clause while maintaining the sentence.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld by converting it to the correct provision, and the appeal was rejected.

---