Judgment B. R. ARORA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2. 3. 93, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, by which the leamed Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to undergo eleven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also, ordered for the forfeiture of the opium recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant. ( 2 ) THE appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act ). The case of the prosecution is that on 26-2-92, PW 1 Mani Ram, A. S. I. , Police Station, Suratgarh, at 10. 30 a. m. , when he returned from Lalgarh Police Station, was informed by the Head Constable that C. R. P. F. Personnel at Sadhuwali Check Post have caught one person who was carrying opium with him. On this information he left the Police Station and went to Sadhuwali Check Post and reached there at about 10. 50 a. m. He found the accused-appellant sitting there and was informed that this person is carrying opium with him. Two Motbir witnesses, viz. , PW 6 Mohan Lal and PW 5 Hans Raj, were called and after informing the accused that if he wants to get himself searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate then that can be arranged. Upon this, the accused informed that he himself can take his search. Upon this, the search of the accused was conducted and in a bag carried by the accused, two polythene bags were recovered which were containing opium. The total weight of the opium recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant was 1. 750 Kgs. Two sample of 30 grams each were taken and the samples as well as the remaining opium were scaled. The scaled packets were thereafter deposited in the Malkhana of the Police Station with PW 4 Jugal Kishore, wherefrom the samples were sent for F. S. L. examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory and on F. S. L. examination the samples were found to be of opium. The scaled packets were thereafter deposited in the Malkhana of the Police Station with PW 4 Jugal Kishore, wherefrom the samples were sent for F. S. L. examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory and on F. S. L. examination the samples were found to be of opium. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined seven witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. The case of the accused, in defence, is that he has been falsely implicated in the case and actually he had gone to Sadhuwali to meet Jagdish here he was caught-hold. The learned trial Court, after trial by his judgment dated 2-3-93, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above. It is against this judgment that the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) THOUGH a number of submission have been made by the learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant but it is not necessary to deal with all these submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant because the present appeal can be disposed of only on one point, i. e. , that there is a non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act which provision has been held mandatory by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of: The State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh and, therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the accused-appellant cannot sustain. ( 4 ) SECTION 42 of the Act deals with the power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization. Sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the Act provides that any officer authorised under the Act, who received any information from any person, should take down in writing that any narcotic drug and/or psychotropic substance, in respect of which the offence punishable under Chapter IV has been committed, may, between Sun rise and Sun set, enter into and search any building, conveyance or place and seize drug or psychotropic substance and detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under the Act relating to such drug or psychotropic substance. Sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act further gives mandate to the authorised officer after writing down the information under Sub-section (1) to forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate officer superior. Section 42 of the Act has been held mandatory by the Supreme Court in the case of: State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (Supra) wherein it has been held as under:"the object of N. D. P. S. Act is to make stringent provision for control and regulation of operation relating to those drugs and substance. At the same time to avoid harm to the innocent persons and to avoid abuse of the provisions by the officer, certain safeguards have been provided which, in the context, have to be observed strictly. Therefore, these provisions make it obligatory that such of those officers mentioned therein, on receiving an information, should reduce the same to writing and also record reasons for the belief while carrying out arrest or search as provided under the proviso to Section 42 (1 ). To that extent they are mandatory. Consequently, the failure to comply with these requirements affects the prosecution case and, therefore, vitiates the trial. "the Supreme Court further observed: 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 send a copy thereof to his immediate officer superior. If there is total noncompliance of this provision, the same affects the prosecution case. To that extent it is mandatory. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 of the Act have been held mandatory by the Supreme Court and if there is non-compliance of these provisions, the trial stands vitiated. In the present case, there is a total non-compliance of these mandatory provision. PW 1 Mani Ram, S. H. O. , who received the information from the Head Constable about with-holding the accused-appellant by the C. R. P. F. Personnel, neither made any entry in the record nor he sent the information to this effect to his immediate officer superior. In the present case, there is a total non-compliance of these mandatory provision. PW 1 Mani Ram, S. H. O. , who received the information from the Head Constable about with-holding the accused-appellant by the C. R. P. F. Personnel, neither made any entry in the record nor he sent the information to this effect to his immediate officer superior. From the statement of PW 1 Mani Ram, S. H. D. it is clear that there is a complete non-compliance of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 of the Act, which are mandatory in nature, Since there is a complete non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act, the whole trial as well as the conviction of the appellant, therefore, stand initiated. In this view of the matter, the conviction and the sentence of the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Act deserves to be quashed and set-aside for the noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act. ( 5 ) IN the result, the appeal filed by accused-appellant Chhoga Ram, is allowed. The judgment dated 2. 3. 93, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Sri Ganganagar, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant, is quashed and set-aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is in Jail and he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.