JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.4.93, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 21/2 years rigorous imprisonment. 2. Appellant Parbat Singh was tried by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 17 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `the Act'). The case of the prosecution is that on 20.3.90, PW 1 Girdhari Singh, H.C., Incharge of Police Out Post, Lathi, alongwith PW 2 Akbar Khan and PW 3 Swaroop Singh, had gone on patrolling duty towards Pokaran and did the Nakabandi on Jaisalmer Road. At about 11.30 a.m., the Jeep No. RST 4898 driven by Kishan Singh, came there which was stopped and searched. The accused-appellant was sitting on the rear seat of the jeep. He was having one bag and on search the bag was found containing opium. The accused-appellant was taken out of the jeep and the information was given to PW 9 Shanti Lal, S.H.O., Police Station, Pokaran, who, after receiving the information, came at the place of the occurrence alongwith PW 6 Bang Singh Constable. PW 9 Shanti Lal, S.H.O., thereafter took the search of the accused-appellant and recovered 3 kgs. of opium from his possession. He took two samples of 30 grams each and the samples as well as the remaining opium were sealed. The samples were sent for F.S.L. examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, and on examination it was found opium. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined nine witnesses. The accused-appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. The independent witness P W 7 Kishan Singh - the driver of the jeep - has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. No independent witness from the nearby village, i.e., Lathi, was called to witness the search and seizure. The remaining are the witnesses of police department. 3. The independent witness P W 7 Kishan Singh - the driver of the jeep - has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. No independent witness from the nearby village, i.e., Lathi, was called to witness the search and seizure. The remaining are the witnesses of police department. 3. PW 1 Girdhari Singh, H.C., PW 2 Akbar Khan and PW 3 Swaroop Singh are the Police Personnels posted at Police Out Post, Lathi, while PW 4 Bhom Singh, PW 5 Kami Singh, PW 6 Bang Singh and PW 9 Shanti Lal, S.H.O., are the police personnel's posted it the relevant time at Police Station, Pokaran. PW 8 Hem Singh was the Police Constable posted at the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, who received the sealed articles and alongwith the forwarding letter, sent the articles for F.S.L. examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused- appellant, as aforesaid. It is against this judgment and that the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. Though a number of submissions 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of: State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872 and, therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the accused- appellant cannot sustain. 5. Section 42 of the Act deals with the power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. 5. Section 42 of the Act deals with the power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. Sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the Act provides that any officer authorised under the Act, who receives 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 such drug or psychotropic substance and detain and search, and, if he think 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 operations 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 affect 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 non-compliance of this provision, the same affects the prosecution case. If there is total non-compliance 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 provisions. PW 9 Shanti Lal, S.H.O., who received the information from PW 1 Girdhari Singh, neither made any entry in the record nor he sent the information to his immediate officer superior. From the statement of this witness 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 vitiated. In this view of the matter, the conviction and the sentence of the accused-appellant are liable to be quashed and set-aside as there is a non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal, filed by accused-appellant Parbat Singh is allowed. The judgment dated 28.4.93, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, 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- Conviction quashed. *******