JUDGMENT N.S. Chouhan, J. 1. The appellant in this appeal challenges his conviction Under Section 8-C read with Section 20B(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the said Act) and sentence of four years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 in default R.I. for one year, recorded vide judgment dated 25-7-1991 in Special Criminal Case No. 24/94 by Special Judge Jabalpur, Shri N.S. Azad. 2. The prosecution case is that on 28-3-1994 at 9.10 P.M. Shri U.S. Sikarwar (PW-3), Station House Officer Lordganj, while on patrol received information that the appellant had kept illicit Ganja in his house for sale. On receiving this information, Shri Sikarwar accompanied by Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police Shri N.P. Tiwari (not examined) and Head Constable Shri Krishna Kumar (PW-1) went to Niwadganj where the appellant resides. Appellant's house was searched by Shri Sikarwar in presence of independent witnesses, namely, Mahesh Prasad (PW-1) and Sudesh Jain (PW-2). Inside the room an attache containing 7 Kgs. of Ganja was found. The case was seized vide Ex. P-2. The appellant was arrested and at the police station F.I.R. (Ex.P-6) was recorded by Shri Sikarwar. The contraband was sent for chemical examination to Doctor Subhash Pathak, Asstt. Chemical Examiner, F.S.L. Jabalpur, vide Memorandum EX P-8 The Said Doctor Confirmed the sample being Gania. 3. The defence consists of outright denial of the prosecution allegation. 4. The first submission is that Under Section 42 of the Act the police officer, i.e., Shri Sikarwar was obliged to record the information received by him during patrol. He failed to do that. Since at that time the sun had set, under proviso of Section 42 ibid the said police officer should have recorded the reasons for his inability to procure a search warrant before entering in the house of the appellant for search. He failed to do that. He has not given any explanation in this behalf. In his statement before the Court we see an assertion that he did not consider it necessary. In view of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, JT 1994 (2) S.C. 108, this infirmity involving breach of a mandatory provision of law has vitiated the entire Trial. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held thus : "2(G). Under Section 42(1) the empowered officer if has a prior information given by any person, that should necessarily be taken down in writing. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held thus : "2(G). Under Section 42(1) the empowered officer if has a prior information given by any person, that should necessarily be taken down in writing. But if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed of materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building etc., he may carry out the arrest or search without a warrant between sunrise and sunset and this provision does not mandate that he should record his reasons of belief. To this extent these provisions are mandatory and contravention of the same would effect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial." The evidence of the said Investigating Officer clearly shows breach of the mandatory provision of Section 42 of the Act in that he failed to record the information received by him during patrol as to the presence of contraband in the house of the appellant and he further failed to record the reasons for not procuring a valid search warrant before entering into the house of appellant after sun set and before sun rise. In fact, from a perusal of the statement of Shri Sikarwar it appears that he is quite ignorant of the requirements of Section 42 ibid. 5. The circumstances in which the Act was passed by the Parliament are well known. Consistent with the objective of the Act with a view to protect the society and particularly the youth of impressionable age from the disastrous consequences of drug addiction and drug trafficking which has assumed worldwide ramifications the existing law was felt inadequate and the said Act was passed providing stringent punishments for the offences as also adequate safeguards against misuse of those provisions by public servants. The safeguards mandated in Section 42 above are part of that delicate web of checks and balances and it is expected that an officer empowered under the Act to investigate such offences should scrupulously comply with the same in order to avoid an offender escaping punishment due to non-observance of the procedural safeguards of the Act. A single unmerited acquittal due to procedural lapses leaves the society more vulnerable. It is, therefore, considered necessary that the State Govt. takes effective measures to ensure consistent observance of all the procedural safeguards contained in the Act by its empowered officers. A single unmerited acquittal due to procedural lapses leaves the society more vulnerable. It is, therefore, considered necessary that the State Govt. takes effective measures to ensure consistent observance of all the procedural safeguards contained in the Act by its empowered officers. It may be desirable to arrange short-duration training of empowered officers of the State in this behalf at district levels. Guidelines for empowered officers may be issued after careful scanning of all the important judgments of Supreme Court "and High Courts with the help of Law Department. Whenever an officer empowered to investigate under the Act is found to have deliberately violated the procedural mandates resulting in acquittal he should be made to explain his conduct and where necessary departmental enquiry be held against him. Reverting to the facts of the case a large quantity of Ganja has been recovered from the possession of the appellant but for non-observance of the safeguards provided Under Section 42 of the Act, it is not possible to uphold the conviction. 6. Next it was contended that the. learned trial Judge was in error to have made use of the report of the Public Analyst without putting the same to the accused in his examination Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Reliance in this behalf was placed on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 S.C. 1622 . The submission has to be accepted. This indicates that caution and sense of responsibility are not just wanted from the enforcement agencies but also from the Courts dealing with such cases. It appears the report of the Public Analyst was filed in the Court during the course of the trial. In all probability, it was received before the examination of the accused, in such circumstances, it is regrettable that the report was not put to the accused when he was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 7. Lastly, it was contended that the alleged contraband seized from the appellant was never produced in the Court. In view of Valsala v. State of Kerala, AIR 1994 S.C. 117 , this infirmity rendered the prosecution case doubtful. It is not understood as to why the prosecution failed to produce the seized article in the Court. It is equally not possible to know as to why the Court did not insist on its production during trial. In view of Valsala v. State of Kerala, AIR 1994 S.C. 117 , this infirmity rendered the prosecution case doubtful. It is not understood as to why the prosecution failed to produce the seized article in the Court. It is equally not possible to know as to why the Court did not insist on its production during trial. Without going into the question whether such non-production of the said article is sufficient by itself to defeat the charge, it is expected that the Courts will be more careful while dealing with such sensitive cases and before proceeding to record evidence in the case must ensure that all preliminaries including production of the incriminating articles in the Court are complete. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed. Appellant's conviction and sentence as aforesaid are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charge.