JUDGMENT & ORDER : S.C. Das, J. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.12.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura in case No.Special(NDPS) 15 of 2013, where under the learned Special Judge found the accused appellant, Goutam Dutta guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(for short NDPS Act) and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh), in default of payment, to suffer R.I. for further four months. 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. P.K. Biswas, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. P. Majumder for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent. 3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 23.11.2013 at about 1100 hrs., S.I. Debabrata Biswas of Bishalgarh Police Station(PW1) received an information over telephone from Inspector Navin Choudhury of "G" Branch, B.S.F., Gakulnagar(PW8) that one Maruti OMNI vehicle, bearing No.TR-01-AA-0553 loaded with huge quantity of ganja(cannabis) was moving from Melaghar side towards Agartala. He entered the information in Bishalgarh P.S. G.D.E.No.1078 dated 23.11.2013 and informed the Sub- Divisional Police Officer(SDPO, for short), Bishalgarh verbally over telephone and thereafter S.I. Debabrata Biswas along with Ms. Sarmistha Chakraborty, SDPO, Bishalgarh(PW2) and Inspector Navin Choudhury of BSF with other security personnel went to the approach road near Rabindra Nath Tagore College at Gakulnagar on national highway and kept on waiting there. At about 1240 hrs., they found one Maruti OMNI vehicle, bearing No.TR-01-AA-0553 approaching towards Agartala with abnormal high speed and they gave signal to stop the vehicle but the vehicle tried to escape and dashed to the roadside wall and it was captured by S.I. Debabrata Biswas, SDPO, Bishalgarh and Inspector, Navin Choudhury and other security staffs. In the meantime, local people also gathered there. There were two persons in the vehicle. Out of them one Goutam Dutta was the driver of the vehicle and another person Tapas Saha(owner of the vehicle) was also in the vehicle and they disclosed their names and identities. On search of the vehicle 9(nine) plastic bags of dry ganja was recovered which was weighted and found to be 95 kg. Out of them one Goutam Dutta was the driver of the vehicle and another person Tapas Saha(owner of the vehicle) was also in the vehicle and they disclosed their names and identities. On search of the vehicle 9(nine) plastic bags of dry ganja was recovered which was weighted and found to be 95 kg. in total and thereafter S.I. Debabrata Biswas seized the same by preparing a seizure list in presence of PWs 2 and 8 and other witnesses and arrested accused Goutam Dutta and Tapas Saha and thereafter proceeded to the P.S. S.I. Debabrata Biswas lodged suo motu FIR before O/C, Bishalgarh P.S. and accordingly Bishalgarh P.S. case No.245 of 2013 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act was registered against arrested accused Goutam Dutta and Tapas Saha and investigation was entrusted to S.I. Prasanta Kr. Dey. During investigation samples were collected from the seized ganja, inventory was prepared in presence of the Magistrate and the samples were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for scientific examination and report and the report was collected. Material witnesses were examined and thereafter charge sheet was filed against both the accused. 4. Learned Special Judge, in course of trial on 26.03.2014 framed charges against both the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, prosecution examined 11(eleven) witnesses, namely: PW1 Sri Debabrata Biswas PW2 Miss Sarmistha Chakraborty PW3 Sri Bishnu Rabi Das PW4 Sri Subrata Debbarma PW5 Sri Pradip Kumar Ghosh PW6 Sri Ashish Chowdhury PW7 Sri Supriya Chakraborty PW8 SI Navin Choudhury PW9 Sri Monoranjan Debbarma PW10 Sri Suman Kumar Chakraborty PW11 Sri Prasanta Kumar Dey. Prosecution also proved the following documents and materials, namely- Exbt.1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 –Seizure list of the plastic bags containing ganja and signatures of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 8 therein respectively. Exbt.2, 2/1 and 2/2 –Complaint and signatures of PW1 and S.I. Monorajan Debbarma therein. Exbt.3 and 3/1-Copy of letter of PW1 addressed to the S.P., Sepahijala District on completion of operation and signature of P.W.1 therein. Exbt.4 and 4/1-Copy of letter of PW2 addressed to the S.P., Sepahijala District disclosing the secret information received from PW1 and signature of PW2 therein. Exbt.5/1, 5 and 5/2-Seizure list of the documents relating to the vehicle and signatures of PW6 and 11 therein. Exbt.4 and 4/1-Copy of letter of PW2 addressed to the S.P., Sepahijala District disclosing the secret information received from PW1 and signature of PW2 therein. Exbt.5/1, 5 and 5/2-Seizure list of the documents relating to the vehicle and signatures of PW6 and 11 therein. Exbt.6 and 6/1-FIR form and signature of S.I. Monoranjan Debbarma therein. Exbt.7 and 7/1-Report of SFSL and signature of PW10 therein. Exbt.8 and 8/1 series-Map and index of the place of occurrence(for short, PO) and signature of PW11 therein. Exbt.9 and 9/1-The inventory and signature of PW1 therein. Exbt.10 and 10/1-List of sample drawn and signature of P.W.11 therein. Exbt.11 series-Extract copy of GD Entry nos.1078, 1079 and 1086. Seized nine bags of ganga, the only material object marked as Exbt.M.O.1 series. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined under Section 313 of CrPC and in their turn they examined one witness, namely DW1 Arun Biswas. Defence case so far ascertained from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of CrPC and that of the deposition of DW1, is that of denial of the prosecution case. It is the case of the defence that the vehicle was stopped on the road for the purpose of checking documents and at that time there was an altercation between the accused persons and the police personnel, and thereafter the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. 7. Accused Tapas Saha absented from the Court when the case was ready for judgment and so the learned Special Judge passed the impugned judgment on 02.12.2015 in respect of accused-appellant Goutam Dutta. 8. It is emphatically argued by learned senior counsel, Mr. Biswas that the entire prosecution case has been vitiated for noncompliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and that the learned Special Judge wrongly arrived at a finding of conviction of the accused. The order of sentence passed, therefore, is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission he referred the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Jag Raj Singh alias Hansa reported in AIR 2016 SC 3041 , Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 2 SCC 212 and Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 2 SCC 502 . 9. Per contra, learned Addl. P.P., Mr. 9. Per contra, learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Debnath has submitted that it is to be presumed that Section 42(2) was complied with since SDPO was informed orally over telephone by PW1 immediately after receipt of information and SDPO herself was present at the time of detention of the vehicle and the search and seizure. Inspector of BSF(PW8) was also present on the spot and so the trial Court rightly put implicit reliance on the statement of those witnesses. Learned Addl. P.P. failed to refer any decision in support of his contention that oral information given to SDPO, the superior authority of S.I. of Police was enough to meet the requirement of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. 10. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is a special law enacted by the Parliament with an object of controlling and regulating the operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The Legislature considering the disastrous effect of drug trafficking and drug abuse on the economic health of the nation on the one hand, and on the physical and psychological health of the vulnerable citizens, particularly, the youth on the other hand, which has been considered as a great concern for the entire nation has made the stringent law to deal with the perpetrator of the offence. The effective prevention and control of drug trafficking and drug abuse has, thus, become a major challenge to the law enforcing agencies of the country. Successful investigation and prosecution of cases and punishment of the offender is one of the surest ways to prevent and control the drug menace. The Act has prescribes stringent punishment of the offenders and also prescribes special procedure to be followed in respect of arrest, search, seizure, etc. The Act also prescribes procedure regarding collection of samples, deposit of the articles as well as disposal of the same. It also prescribes the application of the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code to a limited extent as prescribed in the Act. The Act further prescribes certain provisions as a safeguard so that no innocent is harassed unnecessarily and those are most mandatory provisions. Non-compliance of such prescribed provisions by the investigating agency is fatal for the prosecution. No doubt, such non-compliance will definitely facilitate a wrongdoer to escape from punishment. 11. Let us now see whether Section 42(2) has been complied or not. Non-compliance of such prescribed provisions by the investigating agency is fatal for the prosecution. No doubt, such non-compliance will definitely facilitate a wrongdoer to escape from punishment. 11. Let us now see whether Section 42(2) has been complied or not. For ready reference Section 42 of the NDPS Act is quoted here as a whole, which reads thus- "[42. Non-compliance of such prescribed provisions by the investigating agency is fatal for the prosecution. No doubt, such non-compliance will definitely facilitate a wrongdoer to escape from punishment. 11. Let us now see whether Section 42(2) has been complied or not. For ready reference Section 42 of the NDPS Act is quoted here as a whole, which reads thus- "[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 including para-military forces or armed forces 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, 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 persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act 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 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 this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; 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 this Act: [Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances, granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector: [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 sunset and sunrise 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 within seventy two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.]" 12. It is the definite case of the prosecution that on 23.11.2013, PW1, S.I. Debabrata Biswas received a telephonic information from Inspector Navin Choudhury of BSF(PW8) that a Maruti OMNI vehicle, bearing No.TR-01-AA-0553 moving from Melaghar direction to Agartala loaded with ganja and he entered the information in GDE No.1078 and informed SDPO, Bishalgarh, Sarmistha Chakraborty(PW2) verbally over telephone and thereafter S.I. Debabrata Biswas along with SDPO, Bishalgarh and Inspector Navin Choudhury of BSF, Gakulnagar, along with security staff went to the approach road at Gakulnagar near R.N. Tagore College and kept on waiting there and at about 1240 hrs. they found the vehicle moving towards Agartala from Melaghar direction and they gave stop signal to the vehicle which tried to escape but because of rash driving dashed to the roadside wall and was stopped. Two persons were found in the vehicle i.e. one Goutam Dutta, the accused-appellant and another Tapas Saha, the owner of the vehicle. They made a search and recovered nine plastic bags of ganja and on weighment it was found 95 kg. of dry ganja. The seizure was made on the spot in presence of the witnesses. So, according to the prosecution, the information was first received by PW8 Inspector Navin Choudhury of BSF from secret source. PW8 is an officer of para-military force and the provisions as contained in Section 42 authorize an officer of paramilitary force also to search, seizure and arrest, etc. but, admittedly, he did not do so and he passed on the information over telephone to PW1 SI Debabrata Biswas of Bishalgarh P.S. and SI Debabrata Biswas immediately entered the information in GDE No.1078 of the P.S. A copy of that GDE has been proved as Exbt.11 which reads as follows: "This time I SI- D. Biswas received one Telephonic Information from Inspr. Navin Chowdhury, 'G' Branch, SHQ BSF, Gokulnagar that a vehicle B/Reg. No-TR 01AA-0533(Maruti Suzuki OMNIE) loaded with huge quantity of dry ganja was coming from Melaghar towards Agartala. On receiving the information, entered the matter in P.S. G.D. and brought the information to SDPO, BLG for further course of action. Navin Chowdhury, 'G' Branch, SHQ BSF, Gokulnagar that a vehicle B/Reg. No-TR 01AA-0533(Maruti Suzuki OMNIE) loaded with huge quantity of dry ganja was coming from Melaghar towards Agartala. On receiving the information, entered the matter in P.S. G.D. and brought the information to SDPO, BLG for further course of action. Note in G.D. for reference." It is, therefore an admitted position that copy of that G.D. entry made by PW1 was not forwarded to any superior authority of PW1. The fact was verbally informed to SDPO(PW2) and she came to the P.S. and thereafter made the joint raid. The crux of the question raised is whether this amounts to compliance of Section 42(2). 13. It is an admitted position that search and seizure was made by PW1 SI Debabrata Biswas in presence of SDPO and Inspector of BSF. The search and seizure was not made by SDPO herself though she was empowered by Sub-Section (2) of Section 41 to do so. Now, under such a position, whether, simply because SDPO was present personally when the search and seizure was made, would it amount to compliance of Section 42(2) or not is the crucial question here. 14. The trial Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Satrohan reported in (2008) 8 SCC 313 . In that reported case the information was received by an Inspector of Narcotic Department who was a gazetted officer and the Apex Court considering the fact that the power of search and seizure was exercised by a gazetted officer as per Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act, held that there was no requirement of compliance of Section 42(2). The Court clearly made a distinction between the exercise of power by the officers under Section 41 and Section 42 of the Act and arrived at a clear finding that in a case where the search and seizure was made by a gazetted officer as contained in Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act, compliance of Section 42(2) of the said Act was not required. 15. 15. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh reported in (1994) 3 SCC 299 , while deciding the issue in respect of compliance of Section 42(2) has observed 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. The word, "forthwith" was subsequently amended with the words, "within seventy two hours", but the mandate of forwarding a copy of the information recorded remained unchanged. The Court held, if there is total non-compliance, it shall affect the prosecution case. We may gainfully refer here para 15 of the judgment wherein the Apex Court relying on its several decisions has held:- "15. In K.L. Subhayya v. State of Karnataka : (1979) 2 SCC 115 , this Court considering the scope of Section 54 in the Mysore Excise Act where under the officer was required to "record the grounds of his belief' and the failure to do so was held to be rendering the entire search without jurisdiction and thus vitiated the conviction. Commenting on the failure to do so, it was observed as under: (SCC p. 117, para 4) "This, therefore, renders the entire search without jurisdiction and as a logical corollary, vitiates the conviction. We feel that both Sections 53 and 54 contain valuable safeguards for the liberty of the citizen in order to protect them from ill-founded or frivolous prosecution or harassment." The very fact that sub-section(2) of Section 42 requires that 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, itself is a strong indication of the mandate that the officer should record his reasons for his belief as required under the proviso and also that the information received should be reduced to writing so that it can be verified whether there were sufficient reasons for belief. In Presidential Election 1974, (1974) 2 SCC 33 , Re, this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 49, para 13) "In determining the question whether a provision is mandatory or directory, the subjectmatter, the importance of the provision, the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured by the Act will decide whether the provision is directory or mandatory. It is the duty of the courts to get at the real intention of the Legislature by carefully attending the whole scope of the provision to be construed. 'The key to the opening of every law is the reason and spirit of the law, it is the animus imponentis, the intention of the law maker expressed in the law itself, taken as a whole." In Govind Lal Chaggan Lal Patel v. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, (1975) 2 SCC 482 , it was observed thus: (SCC pp. 487-488, para 13) "Thus, the governing factor is the meaning and intent of the Legislature, which should be gathered not merely from the words used by the Legislature but from a variety of other circumstances and considerations. In other words, the use of the word 'shall' or 'may' is not conclusive on the question whether the particular requirement of law is mandatory or directory. But the circumstance that the Legislature has used a language of compulsive force is always of great relevance and in the absence of anything contrary in the context indicating that a permissive interpretation is permissible, the statute ought to be construed as peremptory. One of the fundamental rules of interpretation is that if the words of a statute are themselves precise and unambiguous, no more is necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense, the words themselves in such case best declaring the intention of the Legislature." The object of NDPS Act is to make stringent provisions for control and regulation of operations relating to those drugs and substances. At the same time, to avoid harm to the innocent persons and to avoid abuse of the provisions by the officers, certain safeguards are provided which in the context have to be observed strictly. At the same time, to avoid harm to the innocent persons and to avoid abuse of the provisions by the officers, certain safeguards are provided which in the context have to be observed strictly. Therefore these provisions make it obligatory that such of those officers mentioned therein, on receiving an information, should reduce the same to writing and also record reasons for the belief while carrying out arrest or search as provided under the proviso to Section 42(1). To that extent they are mandatory. Consequently the failure to comply with these requirements thus affects the prosecution case and therefore vitiates the trial." 16. We may further refer here para 25(2-C) and 3 of the judgment which reads thus: "25(2-C) Under Section 42(1) the empowered officer if has a prior information given by any person, that should necessarily be taken down in writing. But if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building etc. he may carry out the arrest or search without a warrant between sunrise and sunset and this provision does not mandate that he should record his reasons of belief. But under the proviso to Section 42(1) if such officer has to carry out such search between sunset and sunrise, he must record the grounds of his belief. To this extent these provisions are mandatory and contravention of the same would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial. (3) Under Section 42(2) such 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 total non-compliance of this provision the same affects the prosecution case. To that extent it is mandatory. But if there is delay whether it was undue or whether the same has been explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case." 17. In the case at hand, the secret information was first received by PW8, Inspector of BSF. It is not clear from the evidence whether he was a gazetted officer or not. However, he did not proceed to take action either under Section 41 or Section 42. In the case at hand, the secret information was first received by PW8, Inspector of BSF. It is not clear from the evidence whether he was a gazetted officer or not. However, he did not proceed to take action either under Section 41 or Section 42. He passed on the information to PW1, S.I. of Police of Bishalgarh P.S. PW1 entered the information in G.D. i.e. Exbt.11. 18. It is an admitted position that copy of G.D.E. No.1078 was not forwarded to the immediate official superior which amounts to non-compliance of the provision of Section 42(2). There is no case of the prosecution that there was no time in hand to send the copy of the G.D.E. to the official superior. No such evidence also adduced by the prosecution. The information was entered in the G.D.E. at 1100 hrs., whereas, the vehicle was detained at 1240 hrs. There was enough time to forward copy of the G.D. From the cross-examination of PW2, we find that the office of the SDPO was just behind the P.S. It is not understood why the provision was not complied with. It is an error committed by the police officer, who received the information and entered the fact in G.D. Book of the P.S., and it amounts to non-compliance of the provisions as already held by the Apex Court. 19. The cases of Kishan Chand(supra) and Sukhdev Singh(supra) were decided by the Apex Court on the same date but reported on different dates. In both the cases, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 8 SCC 539 . In the case of Sukhdev Singh(supra) the Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of Section 42 are intended to provide protection as well as to lay down a procedure which is mandatory and should be followed positively by the investigating officer. We may gainfully refer here paragraphs 21 and 22 which read thus: "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. We may gainfully refer here paragraphs 21 and 22 which read thus: "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 cannot be an escape from its strict compliance. 22. This question is no more res integra and stands fully answered by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana [ (2009) 8 SCC 539 ]. The Constitution Bench had the occasion to consider the conflict between the two judgments i.e. in Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat [ (2000) 2 SCC 513 ] and Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala( (2001) 6 SCC 692 ] and held as under: (Karnail Singh case, SCC pp.554-55, para 35) "35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows: (a) The officer on receiving the information of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 42 from any person had to record it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1). (b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior. (c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is, after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency. (d) While total non-compliance with requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with Section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non- sending of a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of Section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001." 20. Further, referring to the facts of Sukhdev Singh(supra) and relying on the ratio of Karnail Singh(supra), the Apex Court in para 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the said judgment held- "23. Having referred to the above settled principle of law, we are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the State and have to grant our approval to the submission made on behalf of the appellant. 24. As per the statement of PW1, no effort was made by him to reduce the information into writing and inform his higher authorities instantaneously or even after a reasonable delay which has to be explained with reasons in writing. On the contrary, in the present case, the investigating officer, PW 1 had more than sufficient time at his disposal to comply with the provisions of Section 42. Admittedly, he had received the secret information at 11.30 a.m., but he reached the house of the accused at 2 p.m. even when the distance was only 6 km away and he was in a jeep. There is not an iota of evidence, either in the statement of PW 1 or in any other documentary form, to show what the investigating officer was doing for these two hours and what prevented him from complying with the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act. 25. There is patent illegality in the case of the prosecution and such illegality is incurable. This is a case of total non-compliance, thus the question of substantial compliance would not even arise for consideration of the Court in the present case. The twin purposes of the provisions of Section 42 which can broadly be stated are that : (a) it is a mandatory provision which ought to be construed and complied strictly; and (b) compliance of furnishing information to the superior officer should be forthwith or within a very short time thereafter and preferably post- recovery(sic prior to recovery). 26. The twin purposes of the provisions of Section 42 which can broadly be stated are that : (a) it is a mandatory provision which ought to be construed and complied strictly; and (b) compliance of furnishing information to the superior officer should be forthwith or within a very short time thereafter and preferably post- recovery(sic prior to recovery). 26. Once the contraband is recovered, then there are other provisions like Section 57 which the empowered officer is mandatorily required to comply with. That itself to some extent would minimise the purpose and effectiveness of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. It is to provide fairness in the process of recovery and investigation which is one of the basic features of our criminal jurisprudence. It is a kind of prevention of false implication of innocent persons. The legislature in its wisdom had made the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act mandatory and not optional as stated by this Court in the case of Karnail Singh(supra)." 21. In the case of Kishan Chand(supra), same principle has been annunciated by the Apex Court relying on the decision of the Court in the case of Karnail Singh(supra). The Court held that the compliance with the requirement of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. In special circumstances involving emergence situations, the recording of information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postpone by a reasonable period, i.e., after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency. If the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information, or fails to send a copy thereof to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance, being a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. In para 17 of the judgment the Apex Court referred to the observation made by the Constitution Bench in Karnail Singh(supra). In para 22 of the judgment the Court observed- "22. In para 17 of the judgment the Apex Court referred to the observation made by the Constitution Bench in Karnail Singh(supra). In para 22 of the judgment the Court observed- "22. Sub-section (2) of Section 42 as it originally stood mandated that the empowered officer who has taken down information in writing or records the grounds of his belief under the proviso to sub-section (1), should send a copy of the same to his immediate official superior forthwith. But after the amendment in the year 2001, the period within which such report has to be sent was specified to be 72 hours. Section 43 deals with the power of seizure and arrest of the suspect in a public place." In the case at hand, the power of search and seizure was exercised by PW1 under Section 42(1) and so he was supposed to comply with Section 42(2) in letter and spirit. He did not forward a copy of the G.D. Entry made by him on receipt of the information from PW8. He simply passed on the information over telephone to the SDPO and SDPO participated in the detention, search and seizure of the vehicle and recovery of the narcotic drugs but fact remains that Section 42(2) has not been complied. Whether the presence of SDPO at the time of search and seizure by PW1, though no copy of the G.D. Entry was forwarded to her, as required under Sub-Section(2) of Section 42 amounts to sufficient compliance, no Supreme Court decision on the point could be referred by learned Addl. P.P. 22. In a recent decision, a 2-Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Jag Raj Singh alias Hansa reported in AIR 2016 SC 3041 has held that sending of an information to the official superior by a separate memo. without sending the copy of the information recorded by the officer under Section 42(1) does not amount to compliance of the requirement of Section 42(2). In that reported case the fact was that on 09.08.1998 at 8.00 pm, the Station House Officer received a secret information that a blue jeep car bearing No.HR 24-4057 would come and pass through Haryana via Sirsa and he prepared a memo. In that reported case the fact was that on 09.08.1998 at 8.00 pm, the Station House Officer received a secret information that a blue jeep car bearing No.HR 24-4057 would come and pass through Haryana via Sirsa and he prepared a memo. regarding the information and entered it in the Roznamacha and conveyed the information to the Circle Officer, Nohar at 8.05 pm on the same day through a constable and thereafter proceeded to take action based on the information and recovered Opium powder from the vehicle. The exact copy of the information recorded in the Roznamacha was not sent but a separate memo. was sent to the Circle Officer. While considering the issue of compliance of Section 42(2), in that case, the Apex Court in para 12 and 13 of the judgment observed thus- "12. The High Court has come to the conclusion that there is breach of mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and Section 42(2) and further Section 43 which was relied by the Special Judge for holding that there was no necessity to comply Section 42 is not applicable. We thus proceed to first examine the question as to whether there is breach of provisions of Section 42(1) and Section 42(2). The breach of Section 42 has been found in two parts. The first part is that there is difference between the secret information recorded in Exh. P-14 and Exh. P-21 and the information sent to Circle Officer, Nohar by Exh. P-15. It is useful to refer to the findings of the High Court in the above context, which is quoted below: "From the above examination, it is not found that Exh. P-14 the information which is stated to be received from the informer under Section 42(2) of Act or Exh. P-21, the information given by the informer which is stated to be recorded in the Rozanamacha, copy whereof has been sent to C.O. Nohar, who was the then Senior Officer, Rather, Exh. P-15, the letter which was sent, it is not the copy of Exh. P-14, but it is the separate memo prepared of their own. From the above examination, it is not found in the present case that Section 42(2) of Act, 1985 is complied with." 13. P-15, the letter which was sent, it is not the copy of Exh. P-14, but it is the separate memo prepared of their own. From the above examination, it is not found in the present case that Section 42(2) of Act, 1985 is complied with." 13. What Section 42(2) requires is that where an officer takes down an information in writing under sub-Section (1) he shall sent a copy thereof to his immediate officer senior. The communication Exh. P-15 which was sent to Circle Officer, Nohar was not as per the information recorded in Exh. P-14 and Exh. P 24. Thus, no error was committed by the High Court in coming to the conclusion that there was breach of Section 42(2). 23. It is quite apparent from the fact of the present case that information was first received by PW8, an Inspector of BSF. He did not record the information and simply passed on the information to PW1, SI of Police of Bishalgarh P.S. He recorded the information in G.D.(Exbt.11). The copy of that G.D. was not forwarded to S.D.P.O. He informed S.D.P.O. over telephone and S.D.P.O. participated in the detention, search and seizure. Simply because S.D.P.O. participated in the detention, search and seizure as a witness, does it amount to substantial compliance of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act, is the crucial question here, which in our considered opinion, in view of the discussions held above, was not a compliance in accordance with law. Giving of information orally to the superior officer, without sending a copy as required by law, cannot be said to be a compliance of the provision of law in its strict sense. Since the copy of the entry was not forwarded to the immediate official superior of the recording officer, the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmity which vitiates the trial. 24. Next argument advanced by learned senior counsel, Mr. Biswas is that the seizure of the ganja(cannabis) cannot be believed since except the police and BSF personnel no independent witness supported the search and seizure from the possession of the accused persons. According to PWs 1 and 2, nearby persons of the locality gathered on the spot when the vehicle was detained. PW1 made further specific statement that in presence of some local persons who gathered there they searched the vehicle. According to PWs 1 and 2, nearby persons of the locality gathered on the spot when the vehicle was detained. PW1 made further specific statement that in presence of some local persons who gathered there they searched the vehicle. The place of seizure has been mentioned in the seizure list-"On NH44 at Gakulnagar near the approach road of Rabindra Nath Tagore College". Though PWs 1 and 2 made a clear statement that people from the locality gathered there but no person from Gakulnagar was cited as a witness. No reason also assigned as to why no local people was cited as a witness. If the local people gathered there declined to be a witness and therefore no local people was arrayed as witness, would no doubt be a very good reason, but prosecution did not advance any such case. PWs 2 and 8 are the witnesses who signed the seizure list and proved it. Out of the other witnesses who signed the seizure list, one is an Sub-Inspector of BSF who has not been examined and the other Bishnu Rabi Das(PW3) has been examined. PW3 has made a clear statement that he signed a paper in the P.S. and he proved his signature in the seizure list and he did not say anything more. He is not a resident of Gakulnagar but is a resident of Bishalgarh and he stated in cross-examination that he has a shoe-store near Bishalgarh P.S. Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel has submitted that PW3 did not support the prosecution case, rather made a different statement but he was not declared hostile by the prosecution and so while he made a different statement the defence shall get benefit of it. The trial Court simply discarded the evidence of PW3 observing that there is no material in his statement. Learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that the seizure list has been proved with sufficient evidence and so the evidence of PW3 was rightly ignored. It is the case of the prosecution that search and seizure was made on NH-44 at Gakulnagar near the approach road of Rabindra Nath Tagore College. It is also the case of the prosecution that at the time of search and seizure many local people gathered there. Except PW3, all other seizure witnesses are the police and BSF officials. It is the case of the prosecution that search and seizure was made on NH-44 at Gakulnagar near the approach road of Rabindra Nath Tagore College. It is also the case of the prosecution that at the time of search and seizure many local people gathered there. Except PW3, all other seizure witnesses are the police and BSF officials. No reason assigned as to why no local people was made a witness in the seizure list. No doubt, it creates some sort of doubt. The prosecution only cited PW3 as an independent witness apart from the police personnel and BSF personnel. But that witness stated that he went to Bishalgarh P.S. and as asked by the second officer, he put his signature on a paper. He did not say anything as to whether it was a written paper or a white paper or it was a seizure list or something else. So, his evidence is totally vague. Because of that statement of PW3 the prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard as a whole in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Defence suggested that the vehicle was stopped to check the documents and at that time there was an altercation and thereafter police detained the accused persons. So, the part of the fact that the vehicle was detained at Gakulnagar by the police personnel has been admitted. The seizure of ganja(cannabis) has been denied. PW3 simply stated that he signed a paper. He did not say anything else. So, his statement carries no value at all. Defence also examined one DW and thereby admitted that the vehicle was detained at Gakulnagar along with two persons. That witness simply stated that he approached near the vehicle but did not find anything there. He also did not make any specific statement that no ganja(cannabis) was sized from the vehicle. So, in the particular facts and circumstances of the case, though PW3 did not support the prosecution case, the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 8 cannot be disbelieved simply because they are police and BSF personnel. There is no law that a police or BSF personal cannot be a witness of credit. To discredit the evidence of a police personal or a BSF personal there must be some fact brought on record to show hostility of those witnesses towards the accused. There is no law that a police or BSF personal cannot be a witness of credit. To discredit the evidence of a police personal or a BSF personal there must be some fact brought on record to show hostility of those witnesses towards the accused. Simply because PW3 was not declared hostile, whereas, the witness did not make any statement to favour the defence, we find nothing to apply the ratio of the decisions referred by learned senior counsel, Mr. Biswas in the cases of Javed Masood & anr. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 AIR(SCW) 1656 and Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2005) 5 SCC 272. In our considered opinion, the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 clearly proved that the vehicle was detained and ganja (cannabis) was recovered from the vehicle. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 clearly shows that after seizure the seized ganja was packed and sealed and sample was collected in presence of the Magistrate and that was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory and PW10 has stated that on examination of the sample it was found to be ganja(cannabis). The argument advanced by the learned senior counsel that the sample was not properly collected and sent cannot be accepted. 25. Another point advanced by learned senior counsel, Mr. Biswas is that Section 57 also was not complied with since Exbt.3 shows that it was in connection with some other case registered at Bishalgarh P.S. under the N.D.P.S. Act. It is quite apparent that as many as three case numbers have been mentioned in that report sent by PW1 to Superintendent of Police, Sepahijala and at the bottom of that letter the reference of Bishalgarh P.S. case No.245 of 2013 was made but the earlier two case numbers were different. No doubt, it raises a suspicion but perhaps it will not be appropriate to discard the entire prosecution case on the basis of this suspicion since we find another report sent by SDPO, Exbt.4 on the same date to the Superintendent of Police wherein it was correctly mentioned. 26. In view of the discussions made above, we are of considered opinion that because of failure of the prosecution to prove compliance of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt and we allow the same. 26. In view of the discussions made above, we are of considered opinion that because of failure of the prosecution to prove compliance of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt and we allow the same. Accordingly the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.12.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura in case No.Special(NDPS) 15 of 2013 in respect of accused-appellant, Gautam Dutta is set aside. He be set at liberty at once. 27. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.