JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 20.7.2007, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Shimla, in Complaint Case No. 1-S/2 of 2005, whereby the respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 8, 18, 25, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ND & PS Act), have been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that PW-5 O.P.Sharma, Superintendent, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh, received a secret information on 25.9.2004 at Kullu that Yuvraj Gurang, residing as a tenant at Hari Bhawan, Shoghi (Shimla), is in possession of charas. He was stated to be employee of co-accused Gulshan Kumar, owner of Sharma Dhaba at Shoghi. PW-5 O.P.Sharma, conveyed the information telephonically to the Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh. The witnesses were instructed to proceed to Shoghi. He reduced the information into writing in Ext. PW-5/A. He proceeded to Shoghi in the evening of 25.9.2004. At about 6:00 AM on 26.9.2004, PW-5 O.P.Sharma, reached Shoghi and went to the Police Barrier. He contacted the local police for assistance to conduct the raid. Rapat Rojnamcha was recorded vide Ext. PW-3/A. The request for police assistance was processed. In the meantime, the Narcotics Control Bureau team also reached there alongwith independent witnesses Mohan Singh and Ashok Kumar who were issued notice under Section 100(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They proceeded to the residence of Yuvraj Gurung. PW-5 Sh. O.P.Sharma, issued authorization Ext. PW-5/A to Balwinder Kumar I.O. of the NCB. Thereafter they entered in the premises occupied by Yuvraj Gurang who was present there. The Investigating Officer introduced himself and the team of the N.C.B. Yuvraj Gurang put his signatures on the search authorization in token of having seen and understood the same. The team offered personal search to Yuvraj Gurung, to which he denied. The search of the premises was undertaken. Charas weighing 4.800 Kg and Opium 500 gms were recovered. During inquiry, Yuvraj Gurang told the team of NCB that the recovered Charas and Opium was given to him by accused Gulshan Kumar for further sale in Sharma Dhaba owned by Gulshan Sharma. He used to get Rs. 200/- per kg as commission for selling the same to the customers. 3. During inquiry, Yuvraj Gurang told the team of NCB that the recovered Charas and Opium was given to him by accused Gulshan Kumar for further sale in Sharma Dhaba owned by Gulshan Sharma. He used to get Rs. 200/- per kg as commission for selling the same to the customers. 3. After getting this information, a separate raiding party was formed to search the Dhaba-cum-residential premises. Sh. P.K.Sharma, Intelligence Officer, Balwinder Singh, Sepoy and Yuvraj Gurang remained in the premises of Yuvraj Gurang. The team comprising PW-5 Sh. O.P.Sharma, Balwinder Kumar, Intelligence Officer and other NCB and police officials proceeded to Sharma Dhaba-cum-residential premises situated at National Highway-22, Shoghi Bazar. Two independent witnesses, namely, Darshan Lal Gupta and Tej Lal Sharma were also associated. The search of Dhaba-cum- residential premises of accused Gulshan Kumar was undertaken in the presence of witnesses Darshan Lal and Tej Lal Sharma. During search one small polythene packet kept in Cot occupied by accused Ganga Ram was recovered. It contained dark brownish greasy substance. Accused Ganga Ram told that the substance was Opium. The substance was tested and weighed by Balwinder Kumar, Intelligence Officer with the help of weighing scale and weights, carried by the NCB team. The weight of opium was found to be 50 gms. Out of the recovered Opium, two samples of 25 gms each were drawn by Balvinder Kumar in the presence of PW-5 O.P.Sharma. The same were sealed in small size two polythene bags Ext. C-1 and Ext. C-2. The polythene bags were signed by the accused Ganga Ram as well as the independent witnesses. The recovered contraband was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-2/C. Panchnama Ext. PW-2/B was also prepared. The information about the seizure was sent to the Zonal Director, NCB Chandigarh by PW-5 O.P.Sharma. One sample Ext. C-1 of opium was sent vide memo Ext. PW-4/A to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory, New Delhi through Ramesh Chand, Sepoy. The sample was returned by the Chemical Examiner and re-dispatched through Ramesh Kumar, Sepoy on 29.9.2004. The report of the chemical Examiner Ext. PW-1/A was received by the NCB vide diary No. 1512, dated 14.2.2005. The case property Ext. PW-5/E and seal of NCB-06 remained in the possession of PW-5 O.P.Sharma. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 4. The report of the chemical Examiner Ext. PW-1/A was received by the NCB vide diary No. 1512, dated 14.2.2005. The case property Ext. PW-5/E and seal of NCB-06 remained in the possession of PW-5 O.P.Sharma. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 5 witnesses. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused have denied the prosecution case. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. 5. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the NCB, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate for the accused has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 20.7.2007. 6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. PW-1, D.K.Beri has proved the Chemical Examiner report Ext. PW-1/A. 8. PW-2 Darshan Lal, is the independent witness. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned counsel for the complainant. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was running a shop since 1990. His shop is adjacent to Dhaba of Gulshan Kumar. He did not inquire from the person who had asked about the name and address, as to who he was. His statement was not recorded by that man. On that day his signatures were not obtained. Rather, his signatures were taken on next morning on the third floor of the Dhaba of Gulshan where he was called. He was made to sign a back dated document. However, he has admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-2/A. 9. PW-3 Pritam Singh Head Constable deposed that the Superintendent of NCB Chandigarh came to Police Post Shoghi and sought police help for conducting search. He alongwith three other employees of the Police Post Shoghi went with the NCB Officer. The report was made in the daily diary vide Ext. PW-3/A. 10. PW-4 Constable Ramesh Kumar, NCB Chandigarh, deposed that they started from Chandigarh at 2:30 AM in the night and reached at 6:00 AM at Shoghi Barrier. PW-5 O.P. Sharma, met them at Shoghi Barrier. They went to Hari Bhawan alongwith the witnesses. Room of Yuvraj in the ground floor was checked. PW-3/A. 10. PW-4 Constable Ramesh Kumar, NCB Chandigarh, deposed that they started from Chandigarh at 2:30 AM in the night and reached at 6:00 AM at Shoghi Barrier. PW-5 O.P. Sharma, met them at Shoghi Barrier. They went to Hari Bhawan alongwith the witnesses. Room of Yuvraj in the ground floor was checked. The person living in room introduced himself to be Yuvraj. Search of the room was carried out. From his bed room, 4 kg., 800 gms charas and 500 gms opium was recovered. Thereafter PW-5 O.P.Sharma, Balvinder I.O and three Constables went to Sharma Dhaba. Two independent witnesses were also associated. The building of Sharma Dhaba is 4/5 storeyed. When they were checking second floor of Sharma Dhaba, few workers were sitting on the bed. There were ¾ beds in the room. When they were checking one bed on which Ganga Ram accused was sitting, they found 50 gms opium below the pillow. On 27th evening one sealed packet containing four seals of NCB were handed over to him for taking to CRCL, Delhi. The sample was given alongwith a covering letter. He handed over the sealed parcels in the laboratory at Delhi. While handing over the sealed parcel in the laboratory at Delhi, it was pointed out that in place of opium, charas was mentioned in Ext. PW-4/A and test memo Ext. PW-4/B. He brought back the samples to Chandigarh. After that, the mistake was corrected by Balvinder Kumar, I.O and made endorsement on letter Ext. PW-4/C. 11. PW-5 O.P.Sharma, deposed that he received a secret information at Kullu that one Yuvraj Gurang, residing on the basement of Hari Niwas, Shoghi was involved and was in possession of charas. He was a worker of Gulshan Kumar Sharma, owner of Sharma Dhaba, situated at NH-22, Shoghi. He informed his superior officer i.e. Zonal Director, NCB telephonically and on his instructions, he proceeded towards Shoghi for further action. He also instructed the NCB team at Chandigarh to reach Shoghi. He reduced this information in writing which is Ext. PW-5/A. He made an endorsement on Ext. PW-5/A which is encircled in B. The NCB team joined him at Police Naka Shoghi. The team proceeded towards Hari Niwas, Shoghi. They entered the premises of Yuvraj Gurang. He was present on the spot. Thereafter, search of the premises was undertaken. As a result, 4.800 Kg. PW-5/A. He made an endorsement on Ext. PW-5/A which is encircled in B. The NCB team joined him at Police Naka Shoghi. The team proceeded towards Hari Niwas, Shoghi. They entered the premises of Yuvraj Gurang. He was present on the spot. Thereafter, search of the premises was undertaken. As a result, 4.800 Kg. of charas and 500 gms of opium was recovered. During the preliminary inquiry made from Yuvraj Gurang, he revealed that the recovered charas and opium was given to him by Gulshan Kumar Sharma for further sale in Sharma Dhaba which was owned by Gulshan Sharma. He also revealed that he used to get Rs. 200/- per kg as commission for selling the same to the customers. The separate team was constituted to undertake the search at the Dhaba-cum- residential premises of Gulshan Kumar Sharma. The team comprised of himself, Balwinder Kumar I.O and other NCB and police officials proceeded to Sharma Dhaba-cum- residential premises situated at NH 22, Shoghi. Two witnesses, namely, Darshan Lal Gupta and Tej Lal Sharma, were also associated as independent witnesses. On the second storey of the building, in a room, there were few cots on which few persons were sitting. The said room was searched by the NCB team in the presence of the independent witnesses. One cot, which was occupied by one Ganga Ram, below the pillow a small polythene packet was found containing dark brownish greasy substance, which was emitting a characteristic smell of opium. On asking, Ganga Ram informed that the packet contained opium. The recovered opium from the possession of accused Ganga Ram was weighed by Balwinder Kumar I.O with the help of weighing scale available with the NCB team. It weighed 50 gms. This substance was tested by Balwinder Kumar, I.O. with the help of Drug Field Detection Kit available with the NCB team and the same tested positive for opium. Thereafter, two representative samples of 25 gms each were drawn and were put in two separate polythene packets which were sealed with the help of a candle. Both the packets were then put in two separate white packets i.e. paper envelopes which were pasted with white paper slip on the opening side of each envelope. The I.O. Balwinder Singh took the seal bearing impression Narcotic Control Bureau 06. This seal was taken from him. Both the packets were then put in two separate white packets i.e. paper envelopes which were pasted with white paper slip on the opening side of each envelope. The I.O. Balwinder Singh took the seal bearing impression Narcotic Control Bureau 06. This seal was taken from him. He affixed four seals on the four corners of the paper slip pasted on the envelopes. These envelopes were marked as C-1 and C-2, respectively. The impressions of the seals were also taken on Ext. PW-1/B. The recovery memo was prepared. The original test sample C-1 was sent to Chemical Examiner CRCL, New Delhi through Ramesh Kumar, Sepoy by him vide Ext. PW-4/A. The test memo in duplicate was also sent through Ramesh Kumar, Sepoy. Sample C-1 was returned by the Chemical Examiner and re-dispatched through Ramesh Kumar, Sepoy on 29.9.2004. The report of Chemical Examiner is Ext. PW-1/A which was received by NCB on 14.2.2005. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not remember as to who was the owner of the premises searched by the team. He also admitted that Yuvraj Gurang had nowhere stated that he at any point of time had given the opium to accused Ganga Ram. He did not remember the exact number of persons present in the room of Ganga Ram. However, so far he remembers, there were 3-4 persons. They did not search any person and the search was conducted only of the room. He did not remember the exact number of beds in the room. However, it could be 3-4 beds. He did not remember that whose bed was searched first of all. He admitted categorically that no record has been placed on record of this case to show that the information which he sent vide Ext. PW-5/A was received by the Zonal Director. According to him, the information was given on the mobile number of the Zonal Director. He did not remember the mobile number of the Zonal Director. No telephone record was placed on the record of this case. He did not remember from where the witness Tej Lal Sharma was called. Volunteered that he was there in the vicinity of the Dhaba. The independent witness Darshal lal Gupta was shop keeper at Shoghi. He did not have any idea about his profession. 12. The independent witness PW-2 Darshan Lal Gupta has not supported the version of the prosecution. He did not remember from where the witness Tej Lal Sharma was called. Volunteered that he was there in the vicinity of the Dhaba. The independent witness Darshal lal Gupta was shop keeper at Shoghi. He did not have any idea about his profession. 12. The independent witness PW-2 Darshan Lal Gupta has not supported the version of the prosecution. He was declared hostile. According to him, as noticed by us hereinabove, his statement was recorded on the next date. PW-5 O.P. Sharma, has categorically deposed that he received a secret information when he was at Kullu. He has sent this information to his immediate superior officer vide memo Ext. PW- 5/A. However, it has come in his cross-examination that he has not mentioned the time in Ext. PW-5/A to the effect that at what time the information was received and at what time the Zonal Director was further informed. He also admitted in his cross-examination that the information was given on the mobile number of the Zonal Director. But, he did not remember the mobile number. No telephone record has been placed on record of this case. It is surprising that though PW-5 O.P.Sharma, has stated that he has informed the immediate superior officer i.e. Zonal Director on his mobile number, but he did not remember his telephone number. He has also admitted that no record was placed on record to establish that the information which he has sent vide memo Ext. PW-5/A was received by the Zonal Director. Since, it was a case of prior information, the compliance of Section 42 of the ND & PS Act, was mandatory. 13. The prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that the premises were owned by co-accused Gulshan Kumar. No efforts have been made by the prosecution to establish whether the premises were owned by co-accused Gulshan Kumar or not. PW-5 Sh. O.P.Sharma, has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not remember that in whose name the ownership of the premises was which were searched in this case. It is reiterated that the prosecution ought to have proved the ownership and possession of the Dhaba-cum-residential premises of co-accused Gulshan Kumar. 14. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Rattan vrs. It is reiterated that the prosecution ought to have proved the ownership and possession of the Dhaba-cum-residential premises of co-accused Gulshan Kumar. 14. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Rattan vrs. State of Punjab, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 344 , have held that when there was nothing on record to indicate that quantity of opium recovered from the house was in the conscious possession of appellant or that even the house was in his possession as a tenant, the High Court committed an error of law in maintaining conviction of appellant. 15. Similarly, their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Alam Khan vrs. Narcotics Control Bureau, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 462 , have held that the recovery of contraband was from a flat and in the absence of evidence that the flat was owned and possessed by the accused, the accused was acquitted. Their lordships have held as under: “6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised several contentions in assailing the judgment under appeal. However, we do not propose to deal with all the contentions raised before us as it may not be necessary in view of the fact that one of the contentions finds acceptance at our ends. That contention is that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the ownership and possession of the premises namely, flat now 102 in building no.8A1, Quba Cooperative Housing Societies Millat Nagar, Andheri, Bombay from which the contraband tablets were seized as belonging to the appellant. 7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, except the information received by the officials (Exhbt. No.34) panchnama (Exhbt, No. 33) report and the alleged agreement containing the alleged signature of the appellants no other acceptable evidence was let in by the prosecution to prove that the appellant was the owner and in actual possession of the said building, He also submitted that the reliance. placed by the prosecution on the statements of the appellant obtained under Section 108 of the Customs Act and 67 of the NDPS Act will be of no avail as the appellant has retracted the same without loss of time. He further submitted that a careful perusal of the statements of the appellants viz., Exhbt, 83 and 84 will clearly show that such statements would not have been given voluntarily by the appellant. 8. He further submitted that a careful perusal of the statements of the appellants viz., Exhbt, 83 and 84 will clearly show that such statements would not have been given voluntarily by the appellant. 8. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the agreement executed by the appellant found in the Premises in question and recovered by the officials containing the signature of the appellant is sufficient to establish that the appellant was the owner and in possession of the premises. In this connection, he invited our attention to Section 66 of the NDPS Act and submitted that the prosecution has established the case beyond doubt. He also submitted That the admission of the appellant during the course of interrogation under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence and coupled with the fact of seizure of agreement containing the signature of the appellant, it is not open to the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that the prosecution has failed to establish the ownership of the appellant regarding the premises in question. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. We do not think that the learned Additional Solicitor General is right in invoking the aid of Section 66 of NDPS Act for Section 66(i) visualizes the production of a document which has been seized from the custody or control of any person or furnished by any person. In i this case, the document namely the agreement has not been seized from the custody of the appellant or it has been furnished by him. In order to invoke the aid of Section 66, the prosecution should have established that the appellant is the owner and was in actual possession of the flat in question. Therefore, we are not able to accept the argument of the learned Additional Solicitor General. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not admit his signature in the agreement in question. The prosecution did not bother to produce any independent evidence to establish that the appellant was the owner of the flat in question by producing documents from concerned Registrar's office or by examining the neighbors. No statement has been made by the prosecution that inspite of the efforts taken by them, they could not produce the document or examine the neighbors to prove the ownership of the appellant relating to the flat in question. No statement has been made by the prosecution that inspite of the efforts taken by them, they could not produce the document or examine the neighbors to prove the ownership of the appellant relating to the flat in question. It is relevant to note here that two independent witnesses attested the panchnama. Only one of them was examined as PW 5 who did not support the prosecution version and therefore was treated as hostile. In this case except the retracted statements of the appellant to connect the appellant with the house in question, no other independent evidence is available to sustain the finding of the learned Special Judge extracted in the beginning and confirmed by the High Court. 10. The High Court was not right in holding that 'the learned Trial Judge was therefore right in holding that in view of Section 66 of the NDPS Act, the said document can be admitted in evidence and it goes to show that the said flat was owned by the appellant'. Again the High Court observed that 'even assuming' that the said agreement is excluded from consideration, there remains the specific information received,Exhbt. 33 and his own statement recorded by the Authority under Section 313, Exhbt. 83 and 84 and all of them go to show that the appellant was the owner of the said flat. Ns pointed out earlier that nobody has identified the flat in question as belonging to the appellant and in the absence of corroborating evidence, one cannot come to a confirmed conclusion regarding ownership and possession on the basis of the retracted statements of the appellant alone.” 16. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash @ Baba vrs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 632 , have held that when the recovery of contraband is effected from the house of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused was owner of house and he was in the possession of the same. It has been held as under: “6. A bare perusal of the evidence aforementioned would reveal that the ownership and possession of the house and the place of recovery is uncertain. As a matter of fact PW.3 has categorically stated that the house from where the recovery had been made belonged to one Durga Bhanji and not to the appellant. It has been held as under: “6. A bare perusal of the evidence aforementioned would reveal that the ownership and possession of the house and the place of recovery is uncertain. As a matter of fact PW.3 has categorically stated that the house from where the recovery had been made belonged to one Durga Bhanji and not to the appellant. Even assuming for a moment that the house did belong to the appellant and was in his possession, the prosecution was further required to show the appellant had exclusive possession of the contraband as a very large number of persons including the appellant and five of his brothers, their children and their parents were living therein. Admittedly, there is no evidence as to the appellants exclusive possession. In this situation we find that the judgment cited by the learned counsel that is Mohd. A.Khan's case fully supports the plea on behalf of the appellant, we observe that in addition to the ocular evidence, the prosecution had also put on record a document pertaining to the ownership of the house, but despite this, the Court held as under: "The prosecution did not bother to produce any independent evidence to establish that the appellant was the owner of the flat in question by producing documents from concerned Registrar's office or by examining the neighbours. No statement has been made by the prosecution that in spite of the efforts taken by them, they could not produce the document or examine the neighbours to prove the ownership of the appellant relating to the flat in question. It is relevant to note here that two independent witnesses attested the panchnama. Only one of them was examined as P.W.5 who did not support the prosecution version and therefore was treated as hostile. In this case except the retracted statements of the appellant to connect the appellant with the house in question, no other independent evidence is available to sustain the finding of the learned Special Judge extracted in the beginning and confirmed by the High Court." 17. In the instant case also, besides the accused, other persons were also present in the room and were sitting on different beds. Thus, it cannot be said that the accused was in exclusive possession of the contraband. 18. In the case of State of Punjab vrs. In the instant case also, besides the accused, other persons were also present in the room and were sitting on different beds. Thus, it cannot be said that the accused was in exclusive possession of the contraband. 18. In the case of State of Punjab vrs. Gurnam Kaur & ors., reported in (2009) 11 SCC 225 , their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the recovery of contraband from beneath a bed by itself does not establish that all of them were in conscious possession of the narcotics. It has been held as follows: “14. Respondent Gurnam Kaur admittedly is an old lady. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are her daughters-in-law. Curiously all of them were found sitting on the same bed beneath whereto the contraband had allegedly been kept. That by itself does not establish that all of them were in conscious possession of the narcotics. They were not even asked any question in regard thereto. Prior to lodging of the first information report, the respondents did not point out the place where the narcotics were found kept. How the raiding party found the same has not been disclosed. The ladies in natural course were in their house. No explanation has been furnished, nor the statement of the respondent was recorded. The investigating officer DSP Baldev Singh PW3 was to prove as to where contraband had been kept not the respondents.” 19. In the instant case, PW-5 O.P. Sharma, has not even tried to ascertain the names of the persons who were occupying the room. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the bed from where the recovery was effected, belonged to accused Ganga Ram. 20. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vrs. Laxman Jena, reported in (2009) 16 SCC 332 , have held that the requirements of proviso of Section 42 must be strictly complied with. Their lordships have held as under: “6. However, in exercising a power under the second part of Section 42(1) the designated officer is under a legal obligation to comply with the mandate of the proviso to Sub-section (1) providing for recording of grounds of his belief to make the search in terms of the powers conferred upon him. Their lordships have held as under: “6. However, in exercising a power under the second part of Section 42(1) the designated officer is under a legal obligation to comply with the mandate of the proviso to Sub-section (1) providing for recording of grounds of his belief to make the search in terms of the powers conferred upon him. In the instant case the High Court has found on facts that before making the search, the officer concerned had not recorded reasons or grounds for his belief to make the search in terms of proviso to Section 42(1) of the Act. 7. The mandate of law, as incorporated under the Act, is required to be strictly compiled in view of the grave consequences which are likely to be followed on proof of illicit article under the Act. The legislature had enacted and provided certain safeguards in various provisions of the Act including Sections 42 and 50, in all cases which must be proved to have been strictly followed. The harsh provisions of the Act cast a duty upon the prosecution to strictly follow the procedure and comply with of safeguards, Our constitution bench of this court In the State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, JT1999 (4) SC 595 ; 1999 (6) SCC 172 has held: "Prior to the passing of the NTPS Act 1985 control over narcotic drugs was being generally exercised through certain central enactment though some of the states also had enacted certain statutes with a view to deal with illicit traffic in drugs. The Opium Act, 1857 related mainly to preventing illicit cultivation of poppy, regulating cultivation of poppy, and manufacture of opium. The Opium Act, 1878 supplemented the Opium Act, 1857 and made possession, transportation, import, export, sale, etc. of opium also an offence. The Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, was enacted with a view to suppress traffic in contra band and abuse of dangerous drugs, particularly derived from opium, Indian hemp and coca leaf, etc. The Act prescribed maximum punishment of imprisonment for 3 years with or without fine, in so far as the first offence is concerned and for the second Or the subsequent offence, the punishment could go upto four years RI. these Acts, however, fail to control illicit drug traffic and drug abuse on the other hand exhibited an upward trend. The Act prescribed maximum punishment of imprisonment for 3 years with or without fine, in so far as the first offence is concerned and for the second Or the subsequent offence, the punishment could go upto four years RI. these Acts, however, fail to control illicit drug traffic and drug abuse on the other hand exhibited an upward trend. New drugs of addiction known as psychotropic substances also appeared on the scene causing serious problems. It was noted that there was absence of comprehensive law to enable effective control over psychotropic substances in the manner envisaged by the international convention on psychotropic substances, 1971. The need for the enactment of some comprehensive legislation on narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances was therefore felt, Parliament with a view to meet our social challenge of great dimensions enacted the NDPS Act, 1985 to consolidate and amend existing provisions relating to control over drug abuse etc. and to provide for enhanced penalties particularly for trafficking and various other offences. The NDPS Act, 1985 provides stringent penalties for various offences. Enhanced penalties are prescribed for the second and subsequent offences. The NDPS Act. 1985 was amended in 1988 w.e.f.... 29.5.1989 with minimum punishment of ten years imprisonment which may extend upto 20 and a minimum fine of 1 lakh rupees which may extend upto Rs. 2 lakhs have been provided for most of the offences under the NDPS Act, 1985. For the second and subsequent offences, minimum punishment of imprisonment is 15 years which may extend to 30 years while minimum fine is Rs. 1.5 lakhs which may extend to Rs. 3 lakhs. Section 31(a) of the Act, which was inserted by the Amendment Act of 1988, has even provided that for certain offences, after previous convictions, death penalty shall be imposed without leaving any discretion in the court to avoid imprisonment for life in appropriate cases. Another amendment of considerable importance introduced by the Amendment Act, 1988 was that all the offences under the Act were made triable via special court. Section 36 of the Act provides for constitution of special courts manned by a person who is a sessions judge or an additional sessions judge. Appeals from the orders of the special courts lie to the High Court. Section 36 of the Act provides for constitution of special courts manned by a person who is a sessions judge or an additional sessions judge. Appeals from the orders of the special courts lie to the High Court. Section 37 makes all the offences under the Act to be cognizable and non-bailable and also lays down stringent conditions for grant of bail, However despite the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 as amended in 1988, drug business is booming: addicts are rapidly rising; crime with its role in narcotics is galloping and drug trafficking network is ever growing. While interpreting various provisions of the statute, the object of the legislation has to be kept in view but at the same time, the interpretation has to be reasonable and fair." 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant state could not refer to any record or evidence to show that the mandate of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 42 was followed by the officer concerned before making the search. The High Court in the absence of cogent evidence, rightly concluded that the aforesaid provision had not been followed which entitled the accused the benefit of the acquittal.” 21. In the case of State of Karnataka vrs. Dondusa Namasa Baddi, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 495 , their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the oral evidence of police officials will not be in compliance with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act. Their lordships have held as under: “3. This matter was referred to the Constitution Bench owing to an apparent conflict between two judgments of this Court, Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat wherein it was held by a three Judge Bench that compliance with Section 42(2) of the Act was mandatory and failure of the police officer to take down the information received by him in writing and to forthwith send a report to his immediate official superior would cause prejudice to the accused whereas in Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala which had also been decided by a three Judge Bench it had been held that substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 42 was sufficient. 5. Concededly in the present matter, no information was taken down in writing by the police officer or conveyed to the immediate police officer. 5. Concededly in the present matter, no information was taken down in writing by the police officer or conveyed to the immediate police officer. Shri A.K. Mishra, the learned State counsel has, however, forcefully argued that there was evidence in the oral evidence of P.W. 10, the investigating officer, that he had complied the formalities enjoined by Section 42(2). It is not the case of the prosecution that sufficient time was not available to record the information in writing and send it to the superior officer and in the face of it, we are of the opinion that any oral evidence of the police officer will not be in compliance with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act.” 22. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the contraband has been recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused Ganga Ram. PW-5 O.P. Sharma, has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not remember the exact number of persons present in the room of Ganga Ram. However, so far he remembers, there were 3-4 persons. They did not search any person and the search was conducted only of the room. He did not remember the exact number of beds in the room. However, it could be 3-4 beds. He did not remember that whose bed was searched first of all. 23. Accordingly, there is no occasion for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court and the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.