JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J. - On 25th October, 1991, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, after trial, convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act") and sentenced him, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Mr. Daga, the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant mainly contended that mandatory provisions contained in Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act has not been complied with inasmuch as the raid was conducted by PW 3 Ramkrushna Marge pursuant to the information received as contemplated relating to commission of crime under Chapter N of the NDPS Act and the said information was also reduced in writing by PW 3 Ramkrushna Marge in the Station Sana diary but the copy of the said written information was not sent to his superior officer and, therefore, the trial was affected and accused/appellant was entitled to acquittal. 3. Mr. Kukdey, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand supported the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and submitted that it was a fact that raid was conducted pursuant to the information received by PW 3 Rarnkrushna Marge and the said information was reduced in writing in Station Diary Sana (Exh. 20) and the superior officer was also orally informed by the Raiding Officer namely PW 3 Ramkrushna Marge and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was total non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Thus according to Mr. Kukdey the information was reduced in writing and it was orally informed to the superior officer and, therefore, substantially there was compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. 4. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties can be well appreciated in the light of deposition of PW 3 Ralnkrushna Marge. 4. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties can be well appreciated in the light of deposition of PW 3 Ralnkrushna Marge. He testified before the Court that on 15.5.1991 while he was attached to Sakkardara Police Station and was attending night duty, he received an information to the effect that Gard was being carried in auto rickshaw No. MWY 8294 and the said auto-rickshaw was corning from the direction of Taj Bag and proceeding towards Sakkardara. According to him, this information was disclosed to the Police staff by him and he asked Police Constable Ashok Singh to call the panchas and two panchas were accordingly summoned and the information was also disclosed to the panchas. The information received by him was also given on phone to P.I. Sakkardara, A.C.P. Ganeshpeth and D.C.P. of East Zone and on phone these superior officers ordered him to conduct the raid. After getting nod from his superior officers, he made entries of these facts in the Station Diary. Thereafter he (PW 3 Rarnkrushna Marge), police staff and panchas went to Umrer Road in jeep, stopped jeep in front of one Sut Girni. The head lights of the jeep were kept on and he asked Police Constable Ashok Singh to stay on road to watch arrival of auto-rickshaw which was informed to be carrying the contraband. At that time they noticed one auto rickshaw arriving from the direction of Taj Bag bearing the same number for which they were waiting. That auto-rickshaw was stopped and the driver, the present accused/appellant was shown the identity by him (PW 3 Marge) and the driver (accused) was disclosed that since he was carrying Gard in auto-rickshaw and his search was to be taken. The accused was told whether he wanted the search to be taken in presence of Magistrate or Superior Officer but he declined and then first of all search of auto-rickshaw was taken and when nothing was found in it, personal search of accused was taken and while carrying out personal search of the accused/appellant, two packets in polythene paper were found in his shirt pocket and the said packets were containing Gard which after weighing were found to have 7 grams of contraband. Samples were taken from both the packets and they were sealed. The remaining contraband was also sealed. The shirt of the accused was seized. Samples were taken from both the packets and they were sealed. The remaining contraband was also sealed. The shirt of the accused was seized. The samples were sent for chemical analysis and were found to have brown sugar. First Information Report was lodged, investigation was concluded and the accused was arrested. 5. The accused denied having committed any offence and in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C., he stated that he has been falsely implicated. 6. The Trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, by the Judgment dated 25.10.1991 held that prosecution has proved that the accused was found in possession of heroin and convicted him under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced as aforesaid. 7. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the search was conducted by PW 3 Marge on the basis of definite information received by him as contemplated under the NDPS Act of commission of crime under Chapter IV of the NDPS Act. Since the search was conducted pursuant to information, the provisions contained in Section 42 of the NDPS Act to the extent these are mandatory, were required to be followed. It is seen from the evidence brought on record by the prosecution that the information received by PW 3 Marge was reduced in writing. This information has been reduced in writing in Station Sana Diary (Ex. 20). There is no definite mode or manner prescribed for reducing the information. Therefore, reducing the said information in writing in the Station Sana Diary is proper and meets the mandatory requirement of reducing such information in writing. The further requirement under Sub-section (2) of Section 42 is that after such information is reduced in writing, the copy of such information reduced in writing should be sent to the Superior Officer forthwith, and this compliance is equally mandatory and needs to be followed meticulously. 8. The legal position about the scope and ambit of Sections 41,42 and other relevant sections of NDPS Act relating to search and seizure are no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh1, and the Apex Court has set at rest the controversy about the nature of such provisions to, the extent they are mandatory and in para 26 of the said judgment conclusions are set out. The relevant observations contained in sub-para 3 of para 26 which are relevant for our purpose read as under: "(3) Under Section 42(2) such empowered officer who takes down any information in writing or records the grounds under proviso to Section 42(1) should forthwith sent a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. If there is total non-compliance of this provision the same affects the prosecution case. To that extent it is mandatory. But if there is delay whether it was undue or whether the same has been explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case." 9. Thus the requirement of law is that under Section 42(2) such empowered officer who takes down any information in writing should send a copy thereof to his immediate superior official and if there is total non compliance of this provision, the same affects the prosecution case. To that extent, the provisions contained in Section 42(2) are mandatory. In the present case the Raiding Officer PW 3 Marge has deposed in unequivocal terms in his cross-examination that he had not made written report to his immediate superior officer. In his deposition he has nowhere stated that at any point of time he sent copy of information which was reduced by him in writing, to his superior officer. The evidence of PW 3 Marge is, therefore, clear and leaves no manner of doubt that the copy of information reduced by him in writing was not sent by him to his Superior Officer. On the other hand in his chief testimony PW 3 Marge has deposed that as soon as he got the information about the commission of crime, he disclosed that information to police staff and asked Police Constable Ashok Singh to call panchas and then he informed on phone the information to P.I. Sakkardara, A.C.P. Ganeshpeth and D.C.P. of East Zone and these superior officers ordered him to conduct the raid. Thus, it is clear that the copy of the information which was reduced in writing by PW Marge (the empowered officer) was not sent to superior officer at any point of time. Thus, it is clear that the copy of the information which was reduced in writing by PW Marge (the empowered officer) was not sent to superior officer at any point of time. The evidence of PW 3 and the facts aforesaid, reveal that there was noncompliance of mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, to the extent that though the information was reduced in writing yet the copy thereof, which was required to be sent to the superior officer was not at all sent, much less forthwith. This non-compliance of mandatory provision has affected the prosecution case. 10. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Tawarsu @ Kaneho Bab v. State of H.P.2, held as under: "Section 42(2) of the Act has been held mandatory, non-compliance of which vitiates the trial. Inspector Saju Ram has admitted that he did not send the copy of the flying ruqa to the immediate superior officer. He only sent copy of the FIR after registration of the case to the Superintendent of Police. Non-compliance of Section 42(2) is, therefore, established. The Trial Court has not kept in mind this distinction between the two provisions when it found the sending of First Information Report to the superior officer the same thing as is envisaged under Section 42(2) thereby committing gross error in the trial of this case." 11. At this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Kukday submits that there is some variation and difference in the typed copy of Station Sana Diary available in the paper book and the original Exh. 20. Yet again a case where the Additional Public Prosecutor in charge of Criminal Appeal has not done his duty properly by inspecting the record of the case in advance and comparing it with paper book and verify whether there was correct translation of Mar at hi documents in the paper book. Paper books are ordinarily prepared by the Registry of High Court and supplied to the parties well in advance and if there is any variation or mistake in translation, the contesting parties should check and point out in advance to the office so that necessary corrections are made in the paper book before the arguments in the case begin. Paper books are ordinarily prepared by the Registry of High Court and supplied to the parties well in advance and if there is any variation or mistake in translation, the contesting parties should check and point out in advance to the office so that necessary corrections are made in the paper book before the arguments in the case begin. We have been pointed out mistakes in translation of Mar at hi documents in large number of cases during the course of arguments by the learned Counsel. One of us (Lodha, J.) does not know Marathi. The translation department of this Court should therefore do its work carefully and ensure that translation mistakes do not recur. The Marathi documents which are referred to during the course of arguments, therefore are required to be properly translated to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties as well as the case properly. Moreover the Judgments of this Court in case they are challenged in the Supreme Court, the paper books are sent and, therefore, the learned Counsel should check that the English translation of the Marathi documents in the paper books are proper so that in the event of matter being take to the Supreme Court, the Apex Court can also look into the said paper book. Additional Public Prosecutor has more onerous duty in that regard and it is expected that in future the learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing in criminal matters check the paper books well in time as and when they are supplied by the office and verify the translation in advance and not raise their objections during the course of argument that certain documents has not been properly translated. So far as this case is concerned, the English translation of Ex. 20 which according to Mr. Kukdey is the correct translation of Ex. 20, has not been supplied. Even if the entry made in the Sana diary Ex. 20 is read, the information has been sent to his superior officer, it cannot be read to mean that a copy of written information which was reduced in writing, has been sent, because PW 3 Marge has in unequivocal terms deposed that he had not made written report to his immediate superior officer. 12. Mr. 20 is read, the information has been sent to his superior officer, it cannot be read to mean that a copy of written information which was reduced in writing, has been sent, because PW 3 Marge has in unequivocal terms deposed that he had not made written report to his immediate superior officer. 12. Mr. Kukdey, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied upon a Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Punjab v. Kulwant Singh3, and submitted that mere non-complication of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act would not affect the trial unless that non-compliance has prejudiced the case of the accused. Mr. Kukdey, in this regard, relied upon para 38 of the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which reads as under: "38. Now examining the provisions of Chapter V of the Act in the light of the above referred observation and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it transpires that procedural safeguard provided under the provisions of Sections 41, 42, 52, 55 and 57 of the Act, referred to above, are mandatory in nature, but were noncompliance, violation or breach thereof are not sufficient to vitiate the trial unless, on the circumstances of the particular case, it is found that the non-observance of the safe-guards to such extent has resulted in prejudice to the accused or in failure of justice." 13. This judgment in State of Punjab v. Kulwant Singh (supra) by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was delivered on 17.12.1993 i.e. much before the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (supra) and that was the reason that the observations in para 38 made by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court relating to Sections 41 and 42 are not consistent with the judgment of the Apex Court in Balbir Singh's case and to that extent Full Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court cannot be said to be laying down good law. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (supra) has dealt with Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act at great length and also to the extent the said provisions are mandatory. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (supra) has dealt with Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act at great length and also to the extent the said provisions are mandatory. The Supreme Court has further held that to the extent the provisions of Section 41 and 42 are mandatory, if there is total on compliance, the same affects the prosecution case. In this view of the matter if there is total non-compliance of provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act to the extent the said provisions are mandatory, the prejudice to the accused or no prejudice would not be a relevant factor and trial would be vitiated in the event of total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act to the extent they are mandatory. 14. We thus hold that there was noncompliance of mandatory provisions of Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act to the extent that the copy of the written information which was reduced in writing by PW 3 Marge was not sent to his superior officer and thus to that extent there was total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions. 15. Up-shot of the aforesaid discussion is that this criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The judgment passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, dated 25.10.1991 is quashed and set aside and consequently the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 also stands set aside. The accused/appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. 1. AIR 1994 S.C. 1872 . 2. 1994(3) Crimes 1048. 3. 1995 Cr. L.J. 744.