Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. The prosecution story in brief is as under :- On 31st July, 1986, secret information was received by the S.H.O. Police Station, Nawanshahr that if a raid was conducted on the Dera of Jeet Singh accused-respondent, poppy husk could be recovered from that place. Head Constable Jagjit Singh-PW 2 accompanied by Head Constables Balbir Singh and Natha Singh were deputed to organise a raiding party to go to the Dera. They also made efforts, though without success, to join some independent witness with them. A raid was, accordingly, conducted on the Dera of Jeet Singh and he was found present at that place. He was taken into custody and on interrogation, disclosed that he had kept concealed six gunny bags of poppy husk in a Kup of Toori situated near his residential house. His disclosure statement was, accordingly, taken down and on a search of the Kup, six gunny bags of poppy husk each weighing about 40 kilo were recovered. A sample of 250 grams of poppy husk was taken from each bag and the remaining poppy husk was sealed and taken into possession by the police. On the completion of the investigation, the accused was sent up for trial and charged under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act) and as he pleaded not guilty, was brought to trial. 2 The prosecution in support of its case examined Head Constable Gulzar Singh PW-1 and Head Constable Jagjit Singh PW-2 and also tendered into evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PE and certain affidavits constituting the link evidence. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement u/S 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all the allegations and pleaded false implication. 4. The trial Court held that as the recovery of the poppy husk had been made pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the accused u/S 27 of the Evidence Act, and no independent witness of the locality had been joined at the time of the recovery and that the evidence of the two witnesses being discrepant in material particulars made the prosecution story weak. The trial Court, accordingly, acquitted the accused of the offence charged for. Hence this appeal by the State of Punjab. 5. The trial Court, accordingly, acquitted the accused of the offence charged for. Hence this appeal by the State of Punjab. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as also the judgment of the trial Court. 6. We are of the opinion that there has been a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act, inasmuch that the secret information received by the S.H.O. on which the raid had been conducted on the Dera of the accused-respondent, had not been conveyed to the superior officer. As this mandatory provision had not been complied with, the prosecution was liable to fail. We also find that in the present case, the recovery of the narcotic had been made pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the accused but no independent witness had been joined even at that stage and the recovery had been witnessed only by police officials. We, therefore, find that complete reliance cannot be placed on the prosecution story. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.