Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant State has filed this appeal after grant of leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by learned i ASJ, Ratlam in ST No. 261/1991 dated 20/7/1995. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, SHO Ramesh Chandra Arya of Station road, Ratlam Police Station received information from informer and on the basis of said information, he along with City Superintendent, S. P. Singh (PW. 2) and other police personnel reached near culvert situated by the side of Ratlam Paper mill. They were accompanied by independent witnesses Ramesh and Govardhan. At 12 45 am in the night one person reached there having bag in his hand and on search of the bag, they found 1. 800 kg opium. The opium was seized The person disclosed his name Sheshmani @ Yusuf and also disclosed that he has purchased the said opium after paying price of Rs. 2500/- to the respondent. On the information given by Sheshmani @ Yusuf, SHO Ramesh Chandra Arya along with police force reached at the house of the respondent situated in the locality known as Kheda Sheranipura, Ratlam. In the night at 1. 00 a. m search of the house of the respondent was made and they found one steel tiffin in an almirah containing 920 gm. Opium. The opium was seized in presence of the witnesses after taking two samples each of 30 gm. Respondent was brought to the police station with seized opium where SHO recorded FIR (Ex. P. 8 ). Sample of opium was sent for examination to FSL and its report is Ex. P. 14. According to report, 1. 50 % morphine was available in the sample. The respondent was charge sheeted for commission of offence U/s. 8/18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act"), ( 3. ) RESPONDENT denied the charges, therefore, put to trial. He has not examined any witness in defence. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on two grounds; number one is non compliance of mandatory provision of Sec. 50 and number two breach of mandator) provision of Sec. 42 of the Act. ( 4. ) RESPONDENT denied the charges, therefore, put to trial. He has not examined any witness in defence. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on two grounds; number one is non compliance of mandatory provision of Sec. 50 and number two breach of mandator) provision of Sec. 42 of the Act. ( 4. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for appellant, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in this appeal and learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal which is sustainable only on one ground that prosecution has failed to establish compliance of mandatory provision of Sec. 42 of the Act. Sec. 50 of the Act would not be attracted in this case because personal search of the respondent was not taken and on search of the house, in a tiffin box opium was found. Section 42 of the Act reads as tinder:-"42. Sec. 50 of the Act would not be attracted in this case because personal search of the respondent was not taken and on search of the house, in a tiffin box opium was found. Section 42 of the Act reads as tinder:-"42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.- (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the department of the central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government of of the Border security Force as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing, that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, in respect of which an offence punishable under Chapter TV has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may, between sunrise and sunset- (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such drag or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under Chapter IV relating to such durg or substance; and (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under Chapter IV relating to such drug or substance: provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sun set and sun rise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2)Where an officer takes down any information in writing under Sub-Section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. ( 5. ) THIS Court has gone through the statements of S. P. Singh (PW. 2), Town superintendent and Town Inspector Ramesh Chandra Arya (PW. 3 ). They have no where stated that before taking search of the house they have recorded their satisfaction and grounds of belief that between sun set and sun rise, if the search was not taken immediately without obtaining search warrant from the competent authority, the respondent would run away and shift the contraband article. It is well established legal position that if search of house is taken within the period of sun set and before sunrise, the search warrant has to be obtained by the concerned police and if they are of the opinion that there was every possibility to concealment of evidence or facility for escape of an offender they may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sun set and sun rise after recording the grounds of their belief. In the instant case, no such grounds or belief were recorded by the SHO or City Superintendent. Since grounds of belief was not recorded, question of sending of copy thereof within 72 hours to their immediate official superior would not arise. In this view of the matter, there is clear non compliance of mandatory provision of Sec. 42 (1) (proviso) and sub-section 2. ( 6. ) IN the result, the appeal having no substance is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.