The accused-petitioner Sri Puspadhar Saikia was convicted under section 5(a) of the Assam Opium Prohibition Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia in Complaint Case No. 2058 (Excise) of 1978. The appeal being Appeal No. 16 (1) of 1984 was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 6.6.86. The accused-petitioner was a school teacher in the ME School situated in the Village Hanhkati Gandhaiguri. 2. The Excise Inspector, Tinsukia filed a complaint on 17.1.79 before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia alleging, inter alia, that on 28.9.78 the excise party of Tinsukia went to the house of one Pabor Gohain of the above Village Hanhkati Gandhaiguri and searched his house and found some opium. On questioning, the said Pabor Gohain disclosed that he kept more opium in the house of the present accused-petitioner. According to the prosecution, the excise party went to the house of the accused-petitioner who seeing the party tried to flee away from his house with two plastic bags containing opium which was seized after he was apprehended. There was a chemical examination of the sample and it was found to be that of opium. 3. Prosecution examined 3 witnesses. PW 1, the Excise Inspector, Upendra Chandra Kalita, PW 2 Balin Kauli, Excise Inspector and PW 3 Mahendra Nath Das, Assistant Honorary Organizer of Assam State Prohibi­tion Council, Tinsukia Sub-Division. The plea of the accused was total denial and one witness was also examined. 4. The first point urged by Mr. Sarma Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the search and seizure were in violation of section 20 and 24 of the Assam Opium Prohibition Act, 1947 which are mandatory in nature, the impugned judgment is illegal. The said two sections are quoted below: “20. 4. The first point urged by Mr. Sarma Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the search and seizure were in violation of section 20 and 24 of the Assam Opium Prohibition Act, 1947 which are mandatory in nature, the impugned judgment is illegal. The said two sections are quoted below: “20. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant- (1) Any officer of the Department of Excise not below the rank of Zamadar, any Police Officer not below the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, any officer of the Department of Revenue not below the rank of Sub-Deputy Collector, (any Inspecting Officer or any Intelligence Officers of the Narcotics Intelligence Bureau, Government of India) and any Prohibition Officer authorised in this behalf by the (State) Government, who has reason to believe, from personal knowledge or from information received from any person and taken down in writing and attested by the informant, that any opium, material utensils implement or apparatus in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act or the rules thereunder has been committed is kept or concealed in any building, vessel, or enclosed place, may, between sunrise and sunset- (a) enter into any such building, vessel or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any other obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such opium, material, utensil, implement or apparatus, and any other article liable to confiscation under section 29, and any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of the offence; and (d) detain, search and arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence against this Act relating to such opium, material, utensil, implement or apparatus; Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he' may, after recording the ground of his belief, enter and search such building, vessel or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. 24. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. 24. Report of arrest and seizure - Any officer making an arrest or seizure under this Act shall, within 24 hours after such seizure and arrest, make full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior." Thus it would appear that section 20, inter alia, provides that in case of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant, if the information is received by the officers of the Excise Department or Police Officers and other revenue officers as mentioned in the said section, the said information shall be reduced in writing and attested by the informant. 5. Admittedly, in the case in hand, according to prosecution, Pabor Gohain gave the information about keeping of opium in the house of the accused-petitioner, but this information was not taken down in writing and attested by said Pabor Gohain as required under section 20(1). 6. According to sub-section (2) of the said section such information after taking down in writing has to be sent by the officer to his immediate superior. There is no dispute that no such information was given to the immediate superior officer. 7. According to section 24, officer making an arrest within 24 hours after such seizure and arrest make a full report of all particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate superior officers. PW 1 admitted in his cross-examination that no such report was sent. 8. Thus it appears that the prosecution did not follow the procedure laid down in section 20 and 24 of the Act. Now the only question is whether it would vitiate the trial. Mr. Ahmed, learned Public Prosecutor has urged that as the seizure was made in public place, section 21 will be attracted and as such even if there was violation of provision of section 20 or 24 it would not vitiate the trial. 9. The legislature had clearly provided the safeguards in section 20 and 24, so that innocent person cannot be harassed of falsely implicating in a case of this nature. Mr. Sarma Baruah has urged that non-compliance of the above provision of law would attract the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. The legislature had clearly provided the safeguards in section 20 and 24, so that innocent person cannot be harassed of falsely implicating in a case of this nature. Mr. Sarma Baruah has urged that non-compliance of the above provision of law would attract the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel, inasmuch as, the procedure laid down in sections 20 and 24 of the Act is a procedure established by law and the violation of the above procedure in my opinion would vitiate the trial. 10. Admittedly, except PW 3 no other non-official witness was examined although from the evidence on record it is clear that there were such witnesses. Mr. Sarma Baruah has urged that even PW 3 is not a non-official witness. In my-opinion I need not enter into this controversy in the present proceeding and leave the question open. Even from the evidence of PW 3, I find that he has contradicted on material parts of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Therefore, his evidence is not at all helpful for the prosecution. 11. The occurrence took place on 28.9.78, but the offence report was filed on 17. 1.79. In a case of this nature such a long delay is not expected and no explanation has been given by the prosecution for this delay. I hold that this delay is fatal for the prosecution. 12. Ext. 1 is the seizure list which was signed by some villagers, but as stated above not a single one of them has been examined. This fact also goes against the prosecution and an adverse presumption shall have to be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of the seizure witnesses and other independent witness. 13. For what has been stated above, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly it is allowed and the Rule is made absolute by setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1984. The accused-petitioner is discharged from the liability of bail bond. The petition is disposed of.