JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against Judgment dated 18.2.2014, rendered by learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 12-T/7 of 2013/10, whereby appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for convenience sake), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of `1.00 Lakh, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 16.2.2010 at about 11.40 am, a police party had gone from police post for patrolling and detection of crime. At about 11.40 am, police party noticed a private bus bearing registration No.HP-9B- 1911 coming from Chopal side. Bus was signalled to stop for checking. Police party entered the bus and stated checking in the presence of PW-1 Dinesh Kumar and PW-2 Naresh Kumar. Accused was occupying seat No. 27. He tried to escape. He was apprehended. Accused was carrying a red coloured bag. On checking of the bag, black coloured pants and a polythene bag were found. Polythene bag contained black coloured substance in the shape of sticks and balls. It was found to be Charas on the basis of experience. PW-3 Naresh Kumar was sent for weights and scale. Charas recovered from the possession of the accused was weighed and kept in a cloth parcel and sealed with seven seal impressions of seal ‘K’ in the presence of witnesses. Sample of seal was taken. Impression of seal was put on NCB form. Seal after use was handed over to Dinesh Kumar. Investigating Officer prepared Rukka and sent it to the police station, on the basis of which FIR was registered. NCB form was also prepared on the spot. Parcel was deposited alongwith documents with Het Ram PW-4. Het Ram made entries in the Malkhana Register. Thereafter, case property was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory through PW-5 Bhupinder Kumar alongwith relevant papers. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is Ext. XZ. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Thereafter, case property was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory through PW-5 Bhupinder Kumar alongwith relevant papers. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is Ext. XZ. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. His case was that of denial simpliciter. Accused was convicted and sentenced as noticed herein above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Paresh Sharma, vice Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused. 5. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General has supported the judgment of conviction. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Dinesh Kumar deposed that at about 11.40 am, a bus reached at Deha. Bus was signalled to stop. One person occupying seat No. 27, was in possession of one bag, red in colour. Accused got up and hurried towards exit. Police overpowered him. The red coloured bag available with the accused was checked. It contained one pant of black colour. There was another polythene packet. Polythene packet contained black substance, which was stated to be Charas. Police had sent for weights and scale. Charas was weighed. It weighed 1.100 kg. It was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW-1/A. Sealing procedure was completed at the spot. According to him, they remained on the spot for about 20-25 minutes. 8. PW-2 Naresh Kumar deposed that at about 11.40 am, a bus reached Deha. Bus was signalled to stop by the police. Accused person tried to hurriedly reach towards exit. Police apprehended him. He was carrying a bag Ext. P3. Ext. P3 was examined. It contained a polythene bag Ext. P1 containing Charas. It weighed 1.100 kg. Sealing process was completed at the spot. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that proceedings were conducted by the police outside the bus. Charas was weighed by the Police two times in the police post. Police took two hours to complete the process. 9. PW-3 Naresh Kumar deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended and codal formalities of seizure and sampling were completed at the spot. According to him, Charas was weighed outside the police post. 10. Charas was weighed by the Police two times in the police post. Police took two hours to complete the process. 9. PW-3 Naresh Kumar deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended and codal formalities of seizure and sampling were completed at the spot. According to him, Charas was weighed outside the police post. 10. PW-4 Het Ram deposed that on 16.2.2010, Ram Paul Yadav deposited one sealed parcel sealed with ‘A’ alongwith sample seal ‘A’ and ‘K’ and NCB form in triplicate. He deposited the case property in Malkhana. On 18.2.2010, he sent the sealed packet to FSL Junga through Constable Bhupender. 11. PW-5 Constable Bhupinder Singh deposed that he took case property to FSL Junga alongwith NCB form. 12. PW-7 Sub Inspector Ramesh Thakur deposed that HC Devender Kumar of police post Deha produced before him one cloth parcel sealed with seven seals of ‘K’ alongwith sample seal and case file. He checked the sealed parcel, which was found intact. As Malkhana was not in the police post Deha, he took the same to police station Theog. He produced the same before SHO Police Station Theog. Ramphal of Police Station Theog placed the same parcel in a separate cloth parcel and resealed the same with seal ‘A’. He handed over the parcel to the MHC Police Station for being kept in safe custody. 13. PW-9 Sub Inspector Ram Paul Yadav deposed that on 16.2.2010, HC Devinder Kumar sent Rukka through Constable Naresh Kumar to Police Station Theog. FIR Ext. PW-3/B was registered. Ramesh Thakur also handed over one sealed parcel sealed with ‘K’ NCB form and sample seal impressions. Parcel was resealed by him with seal impression ‘A’. He issued resealing certificate Ext. PW-9/C. 14. PW-10 Gopal Chauhan deposed that he alongwith police officials reached the spot. In his presence accused was found carrying red coloured bag containing pants and black coloured polythene. Police suspected it to be Charas. Charas was recovered. It weighed 1.100 kgs. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was associated when alleged Charas was already with them. 15. PW-11 Devender Kumar is a material witness. He deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended and codal formalities of seizure and sampling were completed at the spot. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was aware that accused was sitting on seat No. 27. They conducted personal search of the accused. 15. PW-11 Devender Kumar is a material witness. He deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended and codal formalities of seizure and sampling were completed at the spot. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was aware that accused was sitting on seat No. 27. They conducted personal search of the accused. He has categorically admitted in cross-examination that when he conducted personal search of the accused, he has not apprised him of his legal right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate under Section 50 of the Act. 16. According to PW-2, Naresh Kumar, police has taken two hours to complete proceedings. However, PW-1 Dinesh Kumar deposed that he remained at the spot of recovery for about 20-25 minutes. PW-11 has deposed specifically in his cross-examination that it took him 4/5 hours to conduct the entire proceedings at the spot. There are major contradictions in the statement of these witnesses whether proceedings were conducted in 20-25 minutes, two hours or 4-5 hours. He also deposed that tickets from the accused was conducted in his presence. PW-2 has deposed that Charas was weighed inside the police post. However, PW-3 Constable Naresh Kumar deposed that Charas was weighed outside by the police. PW-11 HC Devender Kumar in his cross- examination, as discussed above, has categorically deposed that he was aware that accused was occupying seat No. 27. Thus, the police had prior information that accused was in the bus and occupied Seat No. 27. However, despite that Section 42 of the Act, was not complied with. Section 42 is mandatory and its breach would vitiate the entire proceedings initiated against accused. PW- 11 has also admitted in his cross-examination that they had conducted personal search of the accused but he has not apprised accused of legal right under Section 50 of the Act. Tickets were recovered from the possession of the accused. Police party before conducting personal search of accused was required to give option whether he wanted to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Compliance of Section 50 of the Act was also mandatory in this case, when personal search of accused was carried out. PW-1 Dinesh Kumar has deposed that ticket was recovered from accused in his presence. Compliance of Section 50 of the Act was also mandatory in this case, when personal search of accused was carried out. PW-1 Dinesh Kumar has deposed that ticket was recovered from accused in his presence. PW-10 has also deposed that entire proceedings of weighing Charas was conducted at police post Deha thus, it is doubtful whether Charas was weighed outside the Bus or at the police post. It has also come on record that no search was carried of any person except accused, which fortifies the contention of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that police had prior information that accused was traveling in the bus with the contraband. 17. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Beckodan Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala reported in (2002) 4 SCC 229 have held that keeping in mind the grave consequences which are likely to follow on proof of possession of illicit articles under the Act, namely, the shifting of the onus to the accused and severe punishment to which he becomes liable, the legislature has enacted and provided certain safeguards in various provisions of the act including Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. Their lordships have held as under: “3. According to the prosecution, the Sub- Inspector of Police received a telephonic message on 6-10- 1990 at about 8.30 a.m. that narcotic drugs were being sold at T.C. Junction. He recorded the information in the general diary and proceeded to the scene of occurrence in a jeep. On reaching T. C. Junction at about 8.45 a.m. he saw the accused carelessly walking from the bus shelter towards Kathu Parambu side. Allegedly seeing him in suspicious condition, the Sub-Inspector along with his party approached him and after disclosing his identity searched the person of the accused in presence of witnesses. It was found that inside the fold of Dhoti, which the appellant was wearing, opium had been concealed in a polythene bag. As he was found unauthorisedly possessing the opium, he was arrested and the opium seized was weighed to be 11 gms. Out of that 2 gms. each were separated and two samples were roped in plastic paper. On enquiry from the accused whether he would like to meet any higher official or Gazetted officer, he allegedly replied in negative. Section 42 of the Act provides : "42. Out of that 2 gms. each were separated and two samples were roped in plastic paper. On enquiry from the accused whether he would like to meet any higher official or Gazetted officer, he allegedly replied in negative. Section 42 of the Act provides : "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 departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government or 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 a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drug 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 IV 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 drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or 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 drug 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 infomation 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." Section 50 of the Act prescribes : "50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.- (1) When any officer duly authorised under Section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of Section 41, Section42 or Section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted officer or any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in subsection (1). (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female." Keeping in mind the grave consequences which are likely to follow on proof of possession of illicit articles under the Act, namely, the shifting of the onus to the accused and severe punishment to which he becomes liable, the Legislature has enacted and provided certain safeguards in various provisions of the Act including Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh ( 1999 (6) SCC 172 ) has held that while conducting search and seizure in addition to the safeguards provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the safeguards provided under the Act are also required to be followed. The harsh provisions of the Act cast a duty upon the prosecution to strictly follow the procedure and compliance of the safeguards. In that case the Court observed : "Prior to the passing of the NDPS Act,1985 control over narcotic drugs was being generally exercised through certain Central enactments 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, 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 contraband and abuse of dangerous drugs, particularly derived from opium, Indian hemp and coca leaf etc. The Act prescribed maximum punishment of imprisonment for three 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 up to four years' R.I. These Acts, however, failed to control illicit drug traffic and drug abuse on the other hand exhibitedan upward trend. New Drugs of addiction known as psychotropic substances also appeared on the scene posing serious problems. It was noticed that there was an 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 a 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 penalities 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. Minimum punishment of 10 years imprisonment which may extend up to 20 and a minimum fine of Rs. 1 lakh which may extend up to Rs. 2 lakhs have been provided for most of the offences under the NDPS Act, 1985. For the second and subsequent offices, 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 award imprisonment for life in appropriate cases. 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 award 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 by a 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 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. After referring to host of judgments, the Constitution Bench of the Court held that the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 are mandatory and their non compliance would render the investigation illegal. It was reiterated that severer the punishment, greater the care to be taken to see that all the safeguards provided in the statute are scrupulously followed. The safeguards mentioned in Section 50 are intended to serve a dual purpose to protect the person against false accusation and frivolous charges as also to lend credibility to the search and seizure conducted by the empowered officer. If the empowered officer fails to comply with the requirements of the Section, the prosecution is to suffer for the consequences. The legitimacy of the judicial process may come under the cloud if the court is seen to condone acts of lawlessness conducted by the investigating agency during search operations and may also undermine respect for the law and may have the effect of unconscionably compromising the administration of justice. The legitimacy of the judicial process may come under the cloud if the court is seen to condone acts of lawlessness conducted by the investigating agency during search operations and may also undermine respect for the law and may have the effect of unconscionably compromising the administration of justice. In State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh ( 1994 (3) SCC 299 ) it was held that under Section 42(2) the empowered officer who takes down any information in writing or records the grounds under proviso to Section 42(1) should forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. If there is a total noncompliance of the provisions the same affects the prosecution case. To that extent it is mandatory. To the same effect is the judgment in Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad and others v. State of Gujarat ( 1995 (3) SCC 610 ). 5. In this case the violation of the mandatory provisions is writ large as is evident from the statement of K.R. Premchandran (PW 1). After recording the information, the witnesses are not shown to have complied with the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the act. Similarly the provisions of Section 50 have not been complied with as the accused has not been given any option as to whether he wanted to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or the Magistrate. The compliance with Section 50 is held to have been fulfilled on his (PW 1) asking the accused “whether I should search him in the presence of senior officers or a gazetted officer”. The accused was required to be apprised of his right conferred under Section 50 giving him the option to search being made in the presence of a gazetted officer or the Magistrate. The accused is not shown to have been apprised of his right nor any option offered to him for search being conducted in the presence of the Magistrate.” 18. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 2 SCC 212 have held that provisions of Section 42 are intended to provide protection as well as lay down a procedure which is mandatory and should be followed positively by the Investigating Officer. He is obliged to furnish the information to his superior officer forthwith. That obviously means without any delay. He is obliged to furnish the information to his superior officer forthwith. That obviously means without any delay. But there could be cases where the investigating officer instantaneously, for special reasons to be explained in writing, is not able to reduce the information into writing and send the same information to his superior officers but could do it latter and preferably prior to recovery. The compliance of Section 42 is mandatory and there can not be an escape from its strict compliance. Their lordships have held as under: “21. In the present case, the occurrence was of 4-2- 1994. The trial of the accused concluded by judgment of conviction dated 4-7-1998. Thus, it will be the unamended Section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act that would govern the present case. The provisions of section 42 are intended to provide protection as well as lay down a procedure which is mandatory and should be followed positively by the Investigating Officer. He is obliged to furnish the information to his superior officer forthwith. That obviously means without any delay. But there could be cases where the Investigating Officer instantaneously, for special reasons to be explained in writing, is not able to reduce the information into writing and send the said information to his superior officers but could do it later and preferably prior to recovery. Compliance with Section 42 is mandatory and there can not be an escape from its strict compliance.” 19. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 18.2.2014, rendered by learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 12-T/7 of 2013/10 is set aside. Accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required by the Police in any other case. Fine amount if any, deposited by accused, be refunded to him. Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of the accused and send the same to the concerned Superintendent of Jail immediately.