Judgment Narendra Kumar Jain, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 16.01.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, whereby the accused appellant was convicted under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The Central Narcotics Bureau through its Inspector Ramphal, filed a criminal complaint in the trial Court under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the NSPS Act, 1985 wherein it was alleged that on the basis of secret information received by Shri Vijay Singh Meena, Superintendent, Central Narcotics Bureau, a team was constituted and on raid 10 kg. contraband Charas was recovered form the possession of accused appellant Mohan Lal Meena. 3. The trial Court framed charge against the accused appellant under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced the documentary evidence Exhibit P-1 to P-34. Thereafter, statement of accused appellant was recorded under Section 313, CrPC. wherein it was contended by him that the statement of the prosecution witnesses is false. No evidence in defence was produced. 4. The learned trial Court, after hearing arguments, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned above. 5. The learned Counsel for accused appellant contended that this is a case wherein there is a violation of mandatory provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He contended that as per Sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 it was necessary for the concerned officer to reduce the information received by him from the informer in writing and thereafter to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of law. However, in the present case the said provision was not complied with as the secret information received by PW. 5 Vijay Singh Meena has not been placed on record. It appears that either there was no secret information or the same was going against the Department, therefore, the same was withheld by them for the reasons best known to them. He referred the statement of PW. 1 Bahadur Singh, PW. 3 Anil Kumar, PW. 4 R.C. Verma, PW. 5 Vijay Singh and PW. 8 Ramphal. It appears that either there was no secret information or the same was going against the Department, therefore, the same was withheld by them for the reasons best known to them. He referred the statement of PW. 1 Bahadur Singh, PW. 3 Anil Kumar, PW. 4 R.C. Verma, PW. 5 Vijay Singh and PW. 8 Ramphal. He also contended that from the statement of the aforesaid witnesses it is not clear as to where the secret information was received; whether it was received at Kota or at Jaipur. He therefore, contended that basic and important evidence is missing in the case. He also pointed out the number of contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the seal which was used for sealing the contraband was given to independent person PW. 2 Bhagwan Singh but this witness PW. 2 stated that he was not allowed to read any document. As per prosecution case, the seal was given to PW. 2 vide Exhibit P-9 but PW. 2 has not stated specifically in his Court statement that seal was given to him. The prosecution has proved only his signature on Exhibit P-9. PW. 2 Bhagwan Singh, independent witness, was not declared hostile and, therefore, his statement is binding on the prosecution. 7. The learned Counsel for the accused appellant lastly contended that the accused appellant was arrested on 03.05.1998 and was not released on bail during investigation/trial of the case as well as during pendency of the appeal. He has already undergone sentence of 7 years 10 months, therefore, although in view of the aforesaid contention the accused appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt but if this Court does not agree with his submission then at least his case for reducing the sentence from 12 years rigorous imprisonment to minimum sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment may be considered. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the above offence and no interference is called for by this Court in this appeal. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned Judgment as well as the record of the trial Court. 10. PW. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the above offence and no interference is called for by this Court in this appeal. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned Judgment as well as the record of the trial Court. 10. PW. 5 Vijay Singh Meena has admitted in his statement that he recorded the secret information at Hindauncity Railway Station and attested photo copy is enclosed in the file of the Court. The learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the original copy of the said information alleged to have been received by PW. 5 Vijay Singh Meena has not been placed on the record and it has not been exhibited in the case and has not been proved from the statement of any prosecution witnesses including PW. 5 Vijay Singh Meena. The attested photo copy could not have been admitted in evidence, therefore, it was not exhibited. PW. 5 Vijay Singh Meena stated that he was posted in Central Narcotics Department, Kota but he had come to Jaipur in last week of April, 1998; he received a secret information form an informer on 02.05.1998 in his Jaipur office. who told him to contact him on 03.05.1998 at Hindauncity. He thereafter contacted the Senior Superintendent at Jaipur Shri R.V. Verma and proceeded from Jaipur on 03.05.1998 at 3.00 AM itself . PW. 4 R.V. Verma stated that on the basis of secret information received at Jaipur by PW. 5 Vijay Singh Meena, Superintendent, Kota, a team was constituted and they reached at village Shyaroli at Hindaun-Gangapurcity Road at about 13.00 Hrs. PW. 3 Anil Kumar, in his cross-examination, admitted that at 9.30 PW. 5 Vijay Singh Meena came and they went at the place as informed by the informer. They reached Hindauncity at about 6.00 PM. 11. From the statement of PW . 4 R.V. Verma and PW . 5 Vijay Singh Meena it appears that the secret information was reduced in writing also but a copy of it has not been placed on the record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. They reached Hindauncity at about 6.00 PM. 11. From the statement of PW . 4 R.V. Verma and PW . 5 Vijay Singh Meena it appears that the secret information was reduced in writing also but a copy of it has not been placed on the record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. The Honble Supreme Court in Backodan Abdul Rahiman vs. State of Kerala, 2002 (4) SCC 229 , has held that the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 are mendatory in nature and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions is fatal to the prosecution. 12. PW. 5 Vijay Singh Meena has referred about one attested copy of the information and copy of it was filed alongwith the complaint but original was not produced, therefore, it could not be marked as exhibit. Although this document is not proved from the prosecution witness and it cannot be read in evidence in support of the prosecution case but a bare perusal of it will show that it was written at the place Hindauncity Railway Station on 03.05.1998 whereas PW. 5 Vijay Singh Meena, in his statement, stated before the Court that he received the information on 02.05.1998 at Jaipur. It was the duty of PW . 5 Vijay Singh Meena to reduce the said information in writing at Jaipur itself on 02.05.1998 and to forward the same to his superior officer. There are serious and material contradictions in this regard in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and no definite conclusion can be drawn. The initial, basic and important evidence of the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime is missing in the case and in these circumstances I find that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and accused is entitled to get the benefit of the same. Apart from above I further find as per prosecution evidence itself , particularly from statement of PW. 2 whose statement was binding on the prosecution, it is clear that seal used in search and seizure was not given to any independent witness and Exhibit P-9 cannot be said to be proved in view of statement of PW. 2. Therefore, the trial Court has committed an illegality in convicting the accused appellant. 13. 2 whose statement was binding on the prosecution, it is clear that seal used in search and seizure was not given to any independent witness and Exhibit P-9 cannot be said to be proved in view of statement of PW. 2. Therefore, the trial Court has committed an illegality in convicting the accused appellant. 13. From the above facts and circumstances it is clear that the prosecution has violated the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and failed to prove case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Consequently, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment and acquit the accused appellant. The accused appellant is in jail and he may be released forthwith if his custody is not required in any other case.