JUDGMENT : Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 6.6.2015 rendered by learned Special Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in S. Trial No. 33-S/7 of 2013, whereby respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for convenience sake) has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 31.5.2013, ASI Mahesh Kumar alongwith Lady Constable Anjana was present at Forest Check Post, Dhalli to collect information regarding offences under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. At about 12.30 in the noon, ASI Surender Singh, HC Munish Kumar, HC Suresh Kumar from Narcotic Cell, State CID also reached there. They were associated in the team by the Investigating Officer Mahesh Kumar. At about 12.45 pm, when Mahesh Kumar alongwith other police officials reached there, they started moving towards Mashobra. When they had crossed 200 metres on foot, Investigating Officer Mahesh Kumar noticed a girl coming from Mashobra side. She was having a black coloured bag in her right hand and she was having a ladies purse on her left shoulder. Mahesh Kumar introduced himself as well as members of the police. Name of the girl was ascertained. Girl disclosed her name to be Rupali Chauhan. In the meantime, a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01A-4401 bearing driven by its driver came there. ASI Mahesh Kumar stopped the vehicle. Driver of the vehicle was Mohinder Singh. Other person was Mustaq. They were associated as independent witnesses. Thereafter, accused was apprised of her legal right under Section 50 of the Act. Thereafter, Mahesh Kumar gave his personal search to the accused. Mahesh Kumar, with the help of Lady Constable, started the search proceedings. Accused was found carrying a black coloured bag in her right hand. Bag was searched. It contained Charas. It weighed 320 grams. The charas was put in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal impression ‘R’, five in number. NCB form in triplicate, was filled in. Rukka was prepared and sent to the Police Station. FIR was registered. Other codal formalities were completed. Sample was sent for chemical examination. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities. 3. NCB form in triplicate, was filled in. Rukka was prepared and sent to the Police Station. FIR was registered. Other codal formalities were completed. Sample was sent for chemical examination. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove its case against the prosecution. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. She pleaded innocence. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record carefully. 6. PW-1 Mohinder deposed that on 31.5.2013, accused Rupali had hired taxi for Narkanda from Lakkar Bazaar. When they reached Dhalli, police stopped their vehicle. Accused was carrying a black coloured bag. Police told him to search the vehicle. Nothing was recovered from the vehicle. Thereafter police stated that they have to search the accused Rupali. Thereafter, a black coloured bag was searched. It contained a mobile and 2-3 SIM cards, one laptop, some cash and black coloured substance was recovered. It was found to be charas. It weighed 320 grams. Charas was packed in a cloth parcel. Police prepared seizure memo Ext. PW-1/B and gave personal search to the accused. Charas was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/C. 7. PW-2 L.C. Anjana deposed that she was a member of the police party in the case. However, in her cross-examination she could not disclose about the time when she left the Police Station Bharari. According to her, they had gone to the spot on foot. She could not depose about the exact distance between Bharari and spot. She searched the accused. She did not know when the accused was arrested. 8. PW-3 Munish Kumar deposed that Investigating Officer handed over Rukka to him alongwith parcel, NCB form, sample seals. He produced the same before the SHO. FIR was registered. They reached the spot at 12.30 pm. There were four persons who reached the spot. Police party was on patrolling duty. 9. PW-4 HC Govind Ram deposed that they reached the spot at about 12.30 pm. Investigating Officer and police party was on patrolling duty. Police had gone to Sanjauli byepass and from there started moving on foot. 10. They reached the spot at 12.30 pm. There were four persons who reached the spot. Police party was on patrolling duty. 9. PW-4 HC Govind Ram deposed that they reached the spot at about 12.30 pm. Investigating Officer and police party was on patrolling duty. Police had gone to Sanjauli byepass and from there started moving on foot. 10. PW-5 Mustaq deposed that on the relevant day, he was driving taxi No. HP-01A-1824. On 31.5.2013, he was coming from Mashobra to Shimla. At Dhalli bifurcation, police party stopped the vehicle. Another vehicle was also stopped. 11. PW-6 HC Parkash Chand, deposed that he was posted as MHC Police Station CID Bharari. Inspector Kamal Chand handed over Rukka to him at 4.30 pm. FIR Ext. PW-6/B was registered. Thereafter, case file was sent back by Investigating Officer through HC Munish Kumar. Inspector/ SHO deposited with him one parcel which was resealed with 5 seals of seal impression ‘N’. He gave another parcel containing laptop, NCB form in triplicate, copy of seizure memo, resealing certificate, which was deposited by him. He entered the same in Malkhana Register at Sr. No. 125. He proved abstract of Malkhana Register Ext. PW-6/C. He also filled up column No. 12. He sent the case property on 1.6.2013 alongwith NCB form in triplicate, seizure memo, reseal certificate, copy of FIR vide RC No. 33/13 through Constable Dhani Ram to FSL Junga. 12. PW-7 Dhani Ram deposed that he has taken case property to FSL Junga. 13. PW-9 LC Sarita has brought special report of FSL. 14. PW-14 Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 31.5.2013, he alongwith Lady Constable Anjana was present at Forest Check Post Dhalli. At about 12.30 pm ASI Surender, HC Govind, HC Munish Kumar and Constable Suresh of Narcotic Cell also reached there at Forest Barrier Dhalli. They were associated by the Investigating Officer. At about 12.35 pm, he alongwith other police officials started moving towards Mashobra for patrolling, on foot and after about 200 metres distance, he noticed a girl coming from Mashobra side carrying a black coloured bag in right hand and ladies purse on her left shoulder. When he asked the girl why she was going alone she was scared and turned back and tried to run. Police officials apprehended her and asked her name. In the meantime, a vehicle bearing No. HP-01A-4401 came from Mashobra side. It was stopped. When he asked the girl why she was going alone she was scared and turned back and tried to run. Police officials apprehended her and asked her name. In the meantime, a vehicle bearing No. HP-01A-4401 came from Mashobra side. It was stopped. Driver disclosed his name as Mohinder and other occupant was Mustaq. They were associated as independent witnesses. Consent Memo Ext. PW-1/A was prepared. Bag was searched. It contained Charas. It weighed 320 grams. Search, seizure and sealing proceedings were completed at the spot. NCB form was filled in. Rukka was prepared and sent to the Police Station. He also prepared site map. 15. Case of the prosecution, precisely, is that when police officials were at the forest barrier Dhalli, they have started towards Mashobra. Accused was coming from Mashobra side. She tried to run away. She was nabbed. She was apprised of her right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. She was searched by PW-2 Lady Constable Anjana. Bag was searched. It contained Charas. All codal formalities were completed on the spot. However PW-1 Mohinder deposed that on 31.5.2013, accused had hired taxi for Narkanda from Lakkar Bazaar. When they reached Dhalli, police stopped their vehicle. There is variance in the statements of independent witnesses and other witnesses. This casts doubt whether accused was apprehended while coming from Mashobra or in fact she was going towards Narkanda in the taxi being driven by PW-1 Mohinder on 31.5.2013. 16. Consent memo is Ext. PW-1/A. It is a typed form. In this document, it has been specifically mentioned that an authentic information was received that accused was carrying illegal psychotropic substance. It is stated in Hindi, thus, “ eSa lgk;d mi fujh{kd egs'k dqekj vkbZ@lh Fkkuk LVsV lh vkbZ Mh HkjkM+h esa rSukr gwaA @efgyk vk0 vatuk 380 dh lgk;rk ls eq>s vki Jhefr :ikyh pkSgku w/o jksfgr pkSgku r/o H. No. 1/150 BK_I, Shalimar Bagh Delhi. It is stated in Hindi, thus, “ eSa lgk;d mi fujh{kd egs'k dqekj vkbZ@lh Fkkuk LVsV lh vkbZ Mh HkjkM+h esa rSukr gwaA @efgyk vk0 vatuk 380 dh lgk;rk ls eq>s vki Jhefr :ikyh pkSgku w/o jksfgr pkSgku r/o H. No. 1/150 BK_I, Shalimar Bagh Delhi. ds ikl ls voS/k eknd inkFkZ gksus dh fo’oluh; lwpuk izkIr gqbZ gS ftlds fy, vkidh o vkids dCtk esa @mBk;s ySiVkWi cSx dh ryk’kh ysuk vko’;d gSA vki viuh ryk’kh fdlh eSftLVS~V @jktif=r vf/kdkjh ds ikl djok ldrs gS tks fd vkidk dkuwuh vf/kdkj gSA vr% vkidks bl lEcU/k esa vkids vf/kdkj ls lwfpr fd;k tkrk gSA d`I;k vki crk,a fd vki viuh o vius lkeku@ ySiVkWi cSx dh ryk’kh eSftLVS~V@jktif=r vf/kdkjh esa ls fdlds lkeus djokuk pkgrs gS------- ” 17. Thus, the police had prior information that the accused was carrying some contraband and despite that Section 42 of the Act has not been complied with. It was not a ‘chance recovery’. It was necessary for the Investigating Officer to write down the gist of information and send to the immediate superior officer. Section 42 is mandatory. Non-compliance of section 42 has vitiated the trial. Interestingly, PW-1 Mohinder was not declared hostile. PW-14 Mahesh Kumar could not disclose the manner in which they reached the spot. In his cross-examination he testified that he did not know whether he hired vehicle to reach the spot or went in bus. Similarly, PW-2 Anjana did not disclose abut the time of her departure from Bharari. 18. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. There is no occasion for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. 19. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.