JUDGMENT (ORAL) M.B. Ghodeswar, J.- The appellant has filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 26-11-1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Akola for his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 00, 000/-, in default R.I. for one year. 2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that P.W. 3 Ashok Damodhar, Head Constable attached to the City Kotwali Police Station received information from the informer that appellant accused was selling card at his house at Jaihind Chowk, Akola. P.W. 3 then accompanied by panchas raided the house of the accused. The accused was found upstairs in his house and during his search, 7-8 packets of Gard were found in his under-pant pocket. P. W. 3 then mixed the substance of all the packets and took sample. He drew panchnama Exh. 14, seized the property, came to police station along with the accused and lodged the report Exh. 18. He also informed about the seizure to his superiors. The accused was arrested. P.W. 3 sent the sample under his forwarding letter to Chemical Analyst. In sample, the Chemical Analyst detected heroin. 3. During trial, prosecution examined three witnesses. P.W. 1 - Mirza Alibeg - Panch stated that he accompanied P.W. 3 to the house of the accused. When call was given, accused did not come out of the house and, therefore, went upstairs. They took search of the accused and found 7-8 packet in the under-pant pocket of the accused. It was brown sugar. He proved panchnama Exh. 14. He denied the suggestion that he had a quarrel with the accused over kerosene and also that the accused resides at Hariharpeth. 4. P.W. 2 Ramesh Lohakpuri is a constable carrier. On 17.11.1988, he carried one packet along with covering letter of P.W. 3 in Crime No. 103/88 to the Chemical Analyst. 5. P.W. 3 Ashok Investigating Officer has stated that when they went to the house of the accused, a call was given to him. Then the accused came out and he was told the purpose of searching his house. The raiding party offered their search to the accused but he refused. Then the raiding party took search of the house but nothing was found there. Then the accused came out and he was told the purpose of searching his house. The raiding party offered their search to the accused but he refused. Then the raiding party took search of the house but nothing was found there. Then the search of the person of accused was taken, when in the under-pant pocket, 7/8 packets of brown sugar were found. Panchnama was drawn on the spot at Exh. 14. The contents of all the packets were collected in one packet and it was sealed. The accused and the property was taken to the police station and the matter was reported to the Police Inspector. A complaint at Exh. 18 was filed against the accused. The accused was arrested. The sample was sent to Chemical Analyst. He received C.A. Report at Exh. 19. After reaching police station, he gave the property to the In-charge of Muddemal along with letter Exh. 16. In cross-examination, he has stated the information received by him was entered in the station diary. After completing investigation oral information was given to his superiors. He has not informed his superiors in writing regarding the raid. He did not explain as to why it is not mentioned in Panchnama Exh. 14 that the raiding party wanted to search the house but the accused refused to give the search. However, he denied the suggestion that they did not offer their search. 6. On the basis of this evidence, the learned Trial Judge has recorded the finding of conviction and sentence against the accused as stated above. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the finding recorded by the Trial Judge is contrary to law and in view of the decision in State of Punjab v. Balbirsingh1, the finding of conviction in not sustainable, as the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act are held to be mandatory and in this case, P.W. 3' has not followed the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 are procedural and for that he relied on AI.R. 1990 S.C. 2092. From the perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that P.W. 3 has not followed the provision of Sections 42 and 50 in particular while raiding the house of the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 are procedural and for that he relied on AI.R. 1990 S.C. 2092. From the perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that P.W. 3 has not followed the provision of Sections 42 and 50 in particular while raiding the house of the accused. Though P.W. 3 has deposed before the trial Court that the raiding party offered their search to the accused, this factual and legal position is not mentioned in Panchnama Exh. 14. This ground alone is sufficient to vitiate the trial. The finding of conviction is, therefore, illegal. Interference is required. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court is quashed and set aside. The appellant is set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. 1. 1994 (1) Crimes 753. 2. A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 209.