JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 19.11.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara whereby the accused-respondent was discharged of the offence under section 8 r/w Section 19 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are : that on 13.8.1986, Hinglaj Dan Assistant Sub- Inspector, Police Station, Gulabpura received a secret information that one person had come to Jaton-Ka-Mohalla to sell the contraband opium. On receipt of this information, he immediately went to said Mohalla and saw the accused standing there having plastic bag in his hand. On search 950 gms. of contraband Opium was found in the above bag in possession of the accused. Thereupon, he seized the above opium and after taking sample, the remaining opium was sealed. 3. After usual investigation, a challan was filed against the accused in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The 'tamed Addl. Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 19.11.1987 discharged the accused on the solitary ground that on 13.8.1986, ASI Hinglajdan was not competent to search, seize and arrest any person on suspicious of committing an offence under the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, by an amendment, this power has been conferred on the Assistant Sub-Inspector with effect from 16.10.1986. 4. I have heard Mr. R.S. Rathore, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. R.S. Chandrawat, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the position of law that the Assistant Sub-Inspector was empowered to search, seize and arrest any person accused of the offences committed under section 42 of the Act only with effect from 16.10.1986. He has, however, contended that the powers of the Police under section 165 Cr.P.C. to search, seize and arrest any person, if they had reason to believe that a cognizable offence has been committed. Assuming arguendo that the search was illegal then also it will not affect the validity of the seizure and further investigation by the Police. He has, however, contended that the powers of the Police under section 165 Cr.P.C. to search, seize and arrest any person, if they had reason to believe that a cognizable offence has been committed. Assuming arguendo that the search was illegal then also it will not affect the validity of the seizure and further investigation by the Police. In support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni, AIR 1980 SC 429 . 6. It has been further contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the evidence collected in a search in violation of law does not become inadmissible in evidence under the Evidence Act. The consequence would be that the evidence discovered would be to prove unlawful possession of the contraband opium under the Act. Though the search may be illegal but the evidence collected i.e. Panchnama etc. nonetheless would be admissible at the trial. In this connection, reliance has been placed on State of H.P. v. Prithi Chand, 1996 Cr.L.J. 1354 . 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent has justified the impugned order on the ground that when search and seizure was made, the ASI was not competent under section 42 of the Act to perform the above duties. He has submitted that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act have been enacted to safeguard the interest of the accused persons and hence, strict compliance of the above provisions is required and if there is any violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, the whole search and seizure become illegal. In this respect, reliance has been placed on Roshanlal v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 Raj. Cr. Cases 170 . 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has further contended that it has been the consistent view of this Court that the Officer investigating the case must be different from the Officer making recovery of the contraband opium. This is necessary in order to preserve the principle of natural justice, and fair play. Reliance has been placed on Nathiya v. The State, 1992(1) Crimes 537 and Gulam Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 RCC 161 . 9. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. This is necessary in order to preserve the principle of natural justice, and fair play. Reliance has been placed on Nathiya v. The State, 1992(1) Crimes 537 and Gulam Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 RCC 161 . 9. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. In this case, it is not in dispute that on the date of incident, the ASI was not competent to exercise the powers conferred by Section 42 of the Act and hence, the search and the alleged seizure of the contraband opium by the AS1 stand vitiated. The provisions of Section 42 of the Act are special in nature and they provide an in- built protection to the accused. Hence, strict compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act is insisted upon the Court. The proceedings shall stand vitiated if the search is carried out without any search warrant from any competent authority or without recording the ground of belief in writing. This is the exact view which has been taken by this Court in Roshanlal's case (supra). 10. In this case, admittedly, the contraband opium was recovered and seized by the ASI and even investigation was also completed by him. In other words, the Officer who recovered and seized the contraband opium also completed the investigation of the case. Thus, in such a case the accused is presumed to have been deprived of the fair-play and impartial justice. The justice and fair play require that the investigation should have been carried out by an independent officer, who was not in any way a party to the recovery proceedings. This view was taken by this Court in Nathiya & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1992(1) Crimes 537 . Thus, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. Hence, in my considered opinion, the learned Addl. Sessions judge has rightly discharged the accused-respondent of the offences u /ss. 8 r/w Section 19 of the Act. 11. For the above reasons, I find no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******