JUDGMENT: Appellant was tried as sole accused in N.D.P.S.S.C.No.58 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act"). On conclusion of trial and hearing both sides, the trial Court by judgment dated 20.11.2006, convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Challenging the same, appellant/accused preferred this Criminal Appeal. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows. On 01.06.2003, on credible information about smuggling of ganja at Venkatapur village of Kishan Naik Thanda, the Inspector of Police, Narayanakhed circle (P.W.4), along with his staff and mediators proceeded to the said Thanda and reached at about 10.30 A.M. In the outskirts of the said Thanda, he found the appellant concealing himself under a neem tree in the agricultural land of Ramja Naik. On suspicion the police surrounded the tree and found two bags of ganja each weighing 15 kgs and one empty bag. When enquired, appellant disclosed his name and particulars. Then P.W.4 seized the said bags under cover of panchanama. Thereafter, P.W.4 collected sample from each bag and sealed the same and sent to the analyst for analysis. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayankhed registered a case in Crime No.64 of 2003 under Section 20(b) of the Act against the accused and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he arrested the appellant and sent him to the Court for remand. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the appellant. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P4, besides M.Os.1 and 2. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. On an appraisal of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences for which he was charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Hence, this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. On an appraisal of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences for which he was charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Hence, this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly contended that the procedure followed by P.W.4 is contrary to Section 42 of the Act and as such, appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that P.W.4 strictly adhered to the mandatory provisions of the Act and as the appellant was in possession of huge quantity of ganja i.e, more than the commercial quantity, and as the offence is against the society, the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, which needs no interference. In the light of the controversy, it is necessary to see whether the investigating officer has strictly adhered to the provisions of the Act. Section 42 of the Act deals with power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization. The prosecution case mainly depends upon recording of information under Section 42(1) of the Act and sending a copy thereof to the Superior Officer within a period of 72 hours under Section 42(2) of the Act. These two requirements have been held to be mandatory and non- compliance of the same would affect the prosecution case and therefore vitiates the trial. No doubt, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the said aspect was not argued before the trial Court, but that cannot be a ground for this Court to reject the said argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. As it is purely a legal point, this Court is of the view that the same can be advanced at any stage of the proceedings. Whether such an argument is advanced before the trial Court or not is immaterial and this Court can definitely look into the said aspect in deciding this appeal. In the charge sheet and during the course of his evidence, P.W.4 has categorically admitted that he received credible information about smuggling of ganja at Venkatapuram village of Kishan Niak Thanda. Whether such an argument is advanced before the trial Court or not is immaterial and this Court can definitely look into the said aspect in deciding this appeal. In the charge sheet and during the course of his evidence, P.W.4 has categorically admitted that he received credible information about smuggling of ganja at Venkatapuram village of Kishan Niak Thanda. Definitely smuggling of ganja is a menace to the society, but it does not mean that the authorities can dispense with the mandatory requirements provided under Section 42 of the Act. The Act is a penal statute prescribing deterrent punishment only to curtail or scrub the menace of producing, possessing, etc., of ganja, and therefore, heavy duty is cast upon the authorities to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Act. As stated supra, when once it is on credible information, the police visited the said Thanda and found huge quantity of ganja, they are duty bound to strictly adhere to the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. The documents that were marked during the course of evidence are confession and recovery panchanama, complaint, first information report and chemical examination report. From the said documentary evidence coupled with oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, it cannot be said that the said information is reduced into writing and further the same is forwarded to the superior officers within 72 hours as provided for under Section 42(2) of the Act. The investigating officers should have been diligent enough in strictly adhering to the said mandatory requirements. When once the investigating officers failed to reduce the same in writing and send the same to the superior officers, entire case of the prosecution is vitiated for non- compliance of the mandatory requirements. For the foregoing reasons this Court is of the view that benefit of doubt shall be extended to the appellant. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in N.D.P.S.S.C.No.58 of 2003, vide judgment dated 20.11.2006. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be returned to him.