Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. This appeal against acquittal arises out of the following facts; 2. On January 25, 1988 Sub Inspector Ramandeep Singh, S.H.O., Police Station, Sardulgarh received secret information that accused Kaka Singh was selling poppy husk in his house and if a raid was conducted, the same could be recovered. The Sub Inspector accordingly recorded a first information report, Ex. P.A., and after joining Ex. Sarpanch Gurnam Singh with the Police Party, raided the house of the accused. The accused was found present in his house and was taken into custody. An offer under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) was made to the accused before the search but he stated that he would have no objection if the search was conducted by the Investigating Officer himself. The accused was then interrogated and he made a disclosure statement, Ex.PB, to the effect that he had kept conclealed 25 bags of poppy husk underneath the heap of cotton sticks and offered to get the same recovered and pursuant thereto 25 bags of poppy husk each containing 40 Kgs. were recovered. A sample of 100 gms poppy husk was taken out of each bag and the remaining contraband was duly sealed. On return to the police station, the case property was deposited with the Moharrir Head Constable. On the completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned for an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act and as he pleaded not guilty was brought to trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 ASI Kewal Krishan and PW-2 SI Ramandeep Singh. The report of the Chemical Examiner and certain affidavits constituting the link evidence were also tendered in evidence. Gurnam Singh was, however given up as having been won ever by the accused. 4. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded false implication. He further stated that he had been arrested from his village in the presence of Sher Singh, Lamberdar, and are Deva Singh and that nothing had been recovered from him and he had been falsely implicated in the caste at the instance of Gurnam Singh, aforementioned. 5. He denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded false implication. He further stated that he had been arrested from his village in the presence of Sher Singh, Lamberdar, and are Deva Singh and that nothing had been recovered from him and he had been falsely implicated in the caste at the instance of Gurnam Singh, aforementioned. 5. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial Court concluded that the non-production of an independent witness in the facts and circumstances of the case, made the prosecution case doubtful as even Gurnam Singh had been given up as having been won over by the accused. The Court also observed that some criminal case had been registered against Gurnam Singh, aforesaid, and in this situation, it was apparent that even he was under the influence of the Investigating Officer and as such he could not be said to be an impartial observer to the raid. The Court also held that it was evident from the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. supported by the defence witnesses, Sher Singh and Deva Singh, that he had not been arrested in the circumstances given by the prosecution and that he appeared to have been falsely implicated at the instance of Gurnam Singh. The Court also observed that the evident of the two official witnesses was highly discrepant and as such no reliance could be placed on it and as the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act had not been complied with, the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond doubt. The trial Court accordingly acquitted the accused of the offence for which he stood charged. 6. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and have considered the evidence on record. 7. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial Court is well founded although in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh 1999 SCC (Crl) 1080 : [1999(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 1 (SC)], the provisions of Section 50 of the Act could not be said to be applicable to the facts of the present case. We, however, endorse the findings of the trial Court on the other matters that have been dealt with. 8. We, however, endorse the findings of the trial Court on the other matters that have been dealt with. 8. To our mind, there is yet another circumstances, which goes to the root of the matter, but has not been considered by the trial Court. We are of the opinion that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act have not been complied with. In the F.I.R. which had been recorded on the basis of secret information received by Sub Inspector Ramandeep Singh, as also in the evidence produced, we find no indication that inforamtion with regard to the registration of the case had been sent to the superior police officers by Sub Inspector Ramandeep Singh as postulated by Section 42 of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the omission to comply with this provision also vitiates the prosecution case. 9. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.