Judgment S. C. MITAL, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has challenged his conviction under Section 8 read with Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (ndps Act in short) by judgement dt. 29-6-95 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo ten years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- or in default to undergo two years R. I. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that Shri Raghuveer Singh SHO Sridoongargarh received Mukhbir information at 5 p. m. on 9-9-91 that the appellant Ganpat Ram is engaged in illicit trade of opium husk and the appellant has in his possession contraband opium husk. Thereupon PW 7 Raghuveer Singh with his party and two motbir witnesses reached near the house of one Ganpatsingh and saw the appellant coming with a bag on his shoulder. A notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was served upon the appellant who gave his consent to be searched by SHO Raghuveer Singh. On conducting a search of the appellant, 33 Kg 500 gms opium husk was recovered. A sample of 500 gms was taken and sealed on the spot. The remaining article was also sealed in a bag and the appellant was arrested by Ex. P-2. After usual investigation a challan was submitted against the appellant and trial took place for the charge under Section 8 read with Section 15 of NDPS Act. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act has not been made in this case and therefore on account of non compliance of mandatory provisions the appellant cannot be convicted. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that recovery has not been effected from any building, conveyance or enclosed place and therefore the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act are not applicable. ( 4 ) I have perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions about the applicability of Section 42 of NDPS Act in the present case. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that recovery has not been effected from any building, conveyance or enclosed place and therefore the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act are not applicable. ( 4 ) I have perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions about the applicability of Section 42 of NDPS Act in the present case. Section 42 (1) provides that the officer authorised under this Section on having reasonable belief from peronal knowledge or information given by any person and taking down in writing, that any norcotic drug or psychotropic substances in respect of which an offence punishable under chapter VI has been committed. He may enter into and search in the manner prescribed under this Section between sunrise and sunset. Such officer can detain and search and arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under chapter IV relating to such durg or substance. Such officer can detain an accused, make his search, seize the article and arrest the accused on receiving any information and taking down in writing by him or on having reason to believe from personal knowledge that any offence with respect to narcotic drug or psychotropic substance punishable under chapter IV has been committed. Sub Section (2) of Section 42 mandates to the empowered officer to take down any information in writing under sub-Section (1) or record grounds for his belief under the proviso and to forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, according to the provisions contained in Section 42 of NDPS Act if any psychotropic substance or narcotic drug is seized on search from any person on the basis of information taken down in writing then the copy of that information must be sent to the immediate official superior. It is also mandatory that the information which has been received by the empowered officer should be taken down in writing. In the case in hand. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act are applicable and these have not been complied with. Shri Raghuveer Singh PW 7 SHO, Sridoongargarh has deposed that he was informed by Mukhbir that Ganpat Ram is selling opium husk in village Dharmas and is about to proceed further shortly. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act are applicable and these have not been complied with. Shri Raghuveer Singh PW 7 SHO, Sridoongargarh has deposed that he was informed by Mukhbir that Ganpat Ram is selling opium husk in village Dharmas and is about to proceed further shortly. He has further deposed that he wrote the information and asked Shubhram F. C. to send radiogram. In the cross examination he had to admit that he did not take down the information furnished by the Mukhbir. He arranged to send wireless message about, Mukhbir information to the Superintendent of Police by Shubhram F. C. The prosecution has not produced and proved any mukhbir information taken down in writing by Shri Raghuveer Singh. There is no evidence also to show that any copy of information received from the mukhbir was forthwith sent to the official superior. Therefore I find that there is total non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act which is a mandatory provision and non compliance thereof vitiate the conviction. I do not subscribe to the argument of learned Public Prosecutor that Section 42 is not applicable because the recovery has not been effected from any building, conveyance or enclosed place. I am of the opinion that the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 15 of NDPS Act when mandatory provisions under Section 42 of NDPS Act have not been at all complied with. Hence, the conviction of the appellant by the impugned judgement cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned judgement dt. 29-6-95 is hereby set aside. The appellant Ganpat Ram is hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 8 read with Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.