JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma,J.: By way of present appeal, appellant-State has assailed the judgment of acquittal dated 7th July, 2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Una, District Una in Sessions case No.19 of 2007, whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication in the case are that SI Diwan Chand while interrogating one Sanjiv Kumar in Police Station, Bangana, in connection with a case, got the information that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as `accused’) namely, Rajiv Kumar @ Vicky would be coming at night to Una side from Hamirpur for selling charas in his maruti car No.HP-22A-2685. As per prosecution story, after receiving aforesaid information, a letter as required under Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as `ND & PS Act’) was prepared and sent to Superintendent of Police, Una for information. On the basis of aforesaid information, FIR No.57 of 2007 was registered under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act and the investigation was entrusted to PW-15 ASI Ram Ditta. Accordingly, ASI Ram Ditta alongwith HC Jagtar Singh, HC Sucha Singh, C. Updesh Kumar, C. Mohinder Singh and C. Sarjeevan Singh went to Bhalet for laying a naka, which was actually laid at around 12.00 in the midnight. As per prosecution story at that point of time they were also joined by independent witnesses namely Ranbir Singh and Sanjiv Kumar. On 25th June, 2007 approximately at about 4.45 A.M. one maruti Car bearing No.HP-22A-2685, which was being driven by accused, reached at the place of naka i.e. Bhalet and the same was intercepted by police at the place of naka. It is specific case of the prosecution that after being intercepted, accused was told that he is suspected to be carrying charas and as such he is required to be searched. As per story of prosecution he was asked to exercise option as envisaged under Section 50 of ND & PS Act, whether he wanted to get his search conducted before the police or in the presence of gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Accused opted himself to be searched before the gazetted officer. As per story of prosecution he was asked to exercise option as envisaged under Section 50 of ND & PS Act, whether he wanted to get his search conducted before the police or in the presence of gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Accused opted himself to be searched before the gazetted officer. Prosecution story reveals that S.P. Una, deputed one Shri Devakar Sharma, Dy.S.P. (HQ), Una to the spot for carrying out the personal search in terms of Section 50 of the ND & PS Act. It is also case of the prosecution that in the presence of Dy.S.P. and independent witnesses police party gave their personal search to the accused and thereafter conducted the search of the person of the accused from where they could recover Rs.16,000/- from his pocket. Further, on the search of Maruti car bearing No.HP-22A-2685, 1 kg. of charas was found wrapped in a polythene bag. As per the version of prosecution, out of recovered charas, 20 gms. of charas was separated as sample which was made into a sealed parcel and thereafter bulk charas was also sealed in a parcel. NCB form was also filled in and the Investigating Officer took into possession the recovered charas as well as Maruti car. PW-15 ASI Ram Ditta also prepared site plan of the spot of occurrence. Thereafter, accused was informed that he is required to be arrested and he was informed with regard to grounds of his arrest and on his request maternal-grand-father of accused was informed about his arrest. Further prosecution stated that thereafter again search of person of the accused was conducted, whereby one key and one mobile phone were recovered from the person of the accused. On completion of formalities at the spot, Investigator produced the recovered charas before the SHO, Police Station, Bangana with two sample parcels, parcel containing currency notes, one mobile phone and NCB form alongwith the accused. On completion of formalities at the spot, Investigator produced the recovered charas before the SHO, Police Station, Bangana with two sample parcels, parcel containing currency notes, one mobile phone and NCB form alongwith the accused. It is also case of the prosecution that after coming from village Bhalet i.e. the place where the naka was laid, ASI Ram Ditta sent special report to the S.P. Una and SI Diwan Chand resealed the case property with seal impression `La’ and filled in the columns of NCB form and also took the specimen impression of seal `La’ on a piece of cloth and handed over the case property alongwith NCB form and seal impression to MHC Ravi Dutt of Police Station, Bangana on the same day. Here, at this juncture, prosecution story further reveals that after completing the aforesaid sequence of events as has been narrated above, PW-15 ASI Ram Ditta again interrogated the accused in the presence of PW-4 Bhutto and PW-9 Sucha Singh while he was in custody, where the accused disclosed the police that he had kept charas and opium in his house underneath the Charpai in polythene envelops and he can get the same recovered. According to prosecution story, accused led the police party to his house in village Chokkar and he opened the lock of the room with the key which was recovered from the accused on his personal search. It is also story of the prosecution that he got recovered one polythene bag and one plastic bag which were lying under the cot in the presence of PWs Bhutto and Sucha Singh. On opening the polythene bag charas weighing 1 Kg and 440 grams and from the plastic bag opium weiging 1 Kg and 840 grams were recovered by the police. The police officials thereafter drew two samples weighing 20 grams each respectively from the recovered charas and opium were drawn and they were separately sealed with seal having impression `Ka’. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer filled in the NCB forms in triplicate for both the recoveries. ASI Ram Ditta also took impression of the seal on the NCB form before handing over the seal to Bhutto. As per story of the prosecution, thereafter, the Investigator prepared seizer memo in respect of the recovered charas, opium and sample parcels in presence of witnesses. ASI Ram Ditta also took impression of the seal on the NCB form before handing over the seal to Bhutto. As per story of the prosecution, thereafter, the Investigator prepared seizer memo in respect of the recovered charas, opium and sample parcels in presence of witnesses. Prosecution story further reveals that thereafter, ASI Ram Ditta produced both the bulk parcels, sample parcels, sample seal impressions `Ka’ and NCB forms with SHO, Police Station, Bangana. Subsequently, on 4.7.2007, one Shri Ramesh Chand son of Megh Singh produced Registration Certificate, Insurance and Driving Licence pertaining to the vehicle which was taken into possession by the police. It is also the case of the prosecution that ASI Ram Ditta also produced before SHO the sample impression alongwith seal of the case property which inturn was released by SI Diwan Chand and he took specimen impressions of seal `La’ on six pieces of cloth and deposited all the items with the MHC Ravi Dutt. Durng investigation, the police associated Smt.PW Urmila Devi, Pradhan of the village and got a certificate with regard to residence of the accused. Thereafter, samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner for chemical analysis. After completion of the investigation police being satisfied that the case exists against accused under Section 18 and 20 of the ND & PS Act, prepared a charge sheet and presented the same before the Court on 4.10.2007. Copies of the challan were duly supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. 3. The Court of learned Special Judge, after hearing the parties, framed charge against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of the ND & PS Act, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt examined as many as 15 witnesses. After closing the prosecution evidence learned trial Court also examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where he denied all the allegations leveled against him and submitted that he is being falsely implicated in the case. He specifically took a stand that he was called to the police station by one Sanjiv Kumar, an accused, in some other case in connection with his bail on 24.6.2007, where he was implicated in a false case. He specifically took a stand that he was called to the police station by one Sanjiv Kumar, an accused, in some other case in connection with his bail on 24.6.2007, where he was implicated in a false case. He highly disputed the theory of naka laid down by police and thereafter recovery of charas from maruti car as well as of his house. Learned trial Court after examining the prosecution witnesses as well as defence taken by the accused acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 7.7.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Una, H.P. in Sessions Case No.19 of 2007, appellant-State has approached this Court by way of present appeal. 6. Shri R.S. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, duly assisted by Mr.Vikrant Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, vehemently argued that impugned judgment is liable to be set aside being based on hypothecation reasoning, surmises and conjectures. He further argued that learned trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record and to the contrary the evidence collected by the prosecution on record has been dealt with in slipshod and perfunctory manner and the accused has been acquitted on very flimsy grounds. Mr.Verma, further stated that the learned trial Court below has not only failed to consider the prosecution evidence in its right perspective but at the same has set up unrealistic standard to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence. Reasoning of the trial Court is manifestly unreasonable and unsustainable and as such impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Verma, while appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, vehemently argued that finding of trial Court to the effect that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 42 of the ND & PS Act is totally contrary to records. He also argued that there was a substantial compliance of Section 50 of the ND & PS Act because ample opportunity was given to accused to exercise an option of personal search either from police or from the gazetted officer or from the Magistrate in terms of Section 50 of the ND & PS Act. 7. On the other hand, Mr.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 7. On the other hand, Mr.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. During arguments, he invited the attention of this Court to the statements made by prosecution witnesses during trial whereby he tried to point out discrepancies in the prosecution case. He vehemently argued that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of record and it does not warrant any intervention of this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 9. Albeit, during the hearing of the appeal preferred by the appellant-State, we have gone through each and every statement of the prosecution witness as well as statement given by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it would be apt in the interest of justice to critically examine all material prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis documentary evidence made available on the record so that fair and just decision is arrived at. 10. Before referring to the statements given by PW-1 Dy.S.P. Shri Devakar Sharma, we may point out that as per prosecution story, naka was laid at Bhalet on 25/25.6.2007 at 12.00 A.M. with a view to nab the accused. It is also a case of the prosecution that as has been stated by PW-10 SI Diwan Chand that when on the night intervening 24/25.6.2007 around 11.30 P.M. he was interrogating one Shri Sanjiv Kumar in a criminal case related to FIR No.50 of 2007, detail whereof admittedly has not been placed on the record of the case, he got information that Rajiv Kumar accused would be coming to Una from Hamirpur with charas and opium. On the basis of aforesaid information, revealed by Sanjiv Kumr, daily diary reports Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-10/B were drawn according to daily diary report No.33 Ex.PW-10/C. As per his statement subsequently an FIR Ex.W-10/C was also drawn. As per statement of SI Diwan Chand, after getting aforesaid information, an information letter in compliance to Section 42 of the ND & PS Act was sent to S.P. Una i.e. Ex.PW-10/D. As per prosecution story, thereafter ASI Ram Ditta PW-15 and some other police officials were directed to lay naka on the road in Bangana village. As per statement of SI Diwan Chand, after getting aforesaid information, an information letter in compliance to Section 42 of the ND & PS Act was sent to S.P. Una i.e. Ex.PW-10/D. As per prosecution story, thereafter ASI Ram Ditta PW-15 and some other police officials were directed to lay naka on the road in Bangana village. As per statement of SI Diwan Chand PW-10, around 6.00 A.M. on 25.6.2007, ASI Ram Ditta handed over to him three sealed parcels, one of which was said to be containing bulk charas and other two were said to be sample parcels. The seals of the parcels bore impression of the English alphabet `R’. As per his statement, besides aforesaid parcel, Ram Ditta had handed over an NCB form in triplicate alongwith three pieces of cloth bearing seal impressions of `R’. SI Diwan Chand has further stated in his statement that thereafter he resealed the parcel with the seal of `La’ and filled in the relevant columns of the NCB forms. He also stated that thereafter he also took specimen seal impressions of the seal of `La’ on the aforementioned pieces of cloth and thereafter all the items were handed over to HC Ravi Dutt the then MHC of the Police Station. PW-10 in his statement has further stated that on the same day around 11.00 P.M. PW-15 ASI Ram Ditta handed over to him six sealed parcels, one of which was said to be containing charas, the other opium and remaining four parcels were said to be sample parcels. He also stated that besides aforesaid parcels, he also handed over to him NCB form, alnogwith six pieces of cloth bearing impression of the seal `Ka’ which was resealed by him with seal `La’ and filled in the relevant columns of the NCB forms. Two of the said NCB forms are at Ex.PW-10/F and Ex.PW-10/G. He also stated that he took impressions of the seal of `La’ on the aforesaid six pieces of cloth and then handed over all these items to MHC Ravi Dutt. 11. We may point out at this stage that before adverting to prosecution witness PW-1, we have adverted to statement of PW-10 SI Diwan Chand at the first instance because it was SI Diwan Chand on whose direction very process of laying naka and thereafter nabbing accused with contraband was initiated. 11. We may point out at this stage that before adverting to prosecution witness PW-1, we have adverted to statement of PW-10 SI Diwan Chand at the first instance because it was SI Diwan Chand on whose direction very process of laying naka and thereafter nabbing accused with contraband was initiated. Since prosecution has laid specific challenge to the finding returned by learned trial Court with regard to non-compliance of Section 42 of ND & PS Act, we found it proper and necessary to give detail of statement given by PW-10 at first instance because he was the first person who was supposed to comply with the provisions of Section 42 of ND & PS Act before effecting any recovery. 12. Section 42 of ND & PS Act, 1985, provides as under:- “42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. 12. Section 42 of ND & PS Act, 1985, provides as under:- “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 if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorization 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.” 13. Admittedly, if we carefully read the statement of PW-10, he has categorically stated that on receipt of information from Sanjiv Kumar he had sent letter Ex.PW-10/D, as was required to sent under Section 42 of the ND & PS Act, to the SP, Una and thereafter he directed PW-15 ASI Ram Ditta and other police officials to lay naka on the road in Bangana village. Perusal of Ex.PW-10/D clearly suggests that letter was sent to SP, Una, which appears to be received by him on 25.6.2007 at 12.30 A.M. but there is no document available on record suggesting any direction issued by SP, Una, after receipt of Ex.PW-10/D. Even there are contradictions with regard to timing and person who had actually sent the intimation to the SP, Una in compliance of Section 42 of the ND & PS Act, which we would be referring while discussing other prosecution witnesses. Admittedly, if we believe the prosecution story, information with regard to carrying of charas by accused was received by the police at 11.30 P.M. in the night of 24th June, 2007 but prosecution has failed to place on record any document or cite any witness which could suggest that effort was made by police to obtain the search warrant as envisaged under Section 42 of the ND & PS Act. Even it has not been recorded anywhere that search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of the evidence for escaping of an offender. It has not been recorded anywhere in the documents, which have been made available during the trial to the trial Court, which may suggest and clearly establish that actual compliance of Section 42 of the ND & PS Act was done by the police before carrying out search on the person of accused. Though there is a document available on record suggesting Ex.PW-10/D that intimation was sent to SP, Una, correctness of which could not be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt because their own witnesses PW-1 ASI Ram Ditta in his statement has stated that he had actually informed the SP, Una, after laying the naka at Bangana Road. Though there is a document available on record suggesting Ex.PW-10/D that intimation was sent to SP, Una, correctness of which could not be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt because their own witnesses PW-1 ASI Ram Ditta in his statement has stated that he had actually informed the SP, Una, after laying the naka at Bangana Road. Statement of ASI Ram Ditta totally falsifies story put forth by PW-10 Diwan Chand, where he states that after recording statement of Sanjiv Kumar at 11.30 A.M. on 24.6.2007 he sent information to SP, Una. As has been pointed out above, there is no document on record to suggest that before carrying out search on the person of an accused that too when they had a prior intimation, police had ever made any effort to obtain the search warrant at first instance and thereafter they did not record any reason for not obtaining search warrant. At this stage, after referring to all the material prosecution witnesses we can safely infer that learned trial Court has rightly returned the findings that there was no evidence to suggest the sufficient compliance of Section 42 of the ND & PS Act. 14 Now, we advert to statement given by PW-1 Shri Devakar Sharma, Dy.S.P. who in his statement stated that on 25.6.2007after receiving the information from ASI Ram Ditta PW-15 he went to the spot at village Bhalet at 5.00 A.M. He further stated that during search of the person of the accused, currency notes of Rs.16,000/- were recovered. On search of maruti car of the accused, charas contained in polythene bag was recovered. He also stated that recovery was effected in the presence of independent witnesses, namely, PW-2 Ranbir Singh and PW-5 Sanjiv Kumar, who have lateron in their statements have not supported the version of PW-1. He also stated that on weighment, recovered charas was found to be 1 Kg. Two samples each weighing 20 grams were separated and then drawn from the recovered charas and made into separate parcels, which was sealed with seal of `R’. The same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW-1/A which was duly signed by him in addition to other witnesses. As per his version impression of the seal was taken on a piece of cloth Ex.PW-1/B. He also identified the charas Ex.P1 and sample parcel Ex.P2. The same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW-1/A which was duly signed by him in addition to other witnesses. As per his version impression of the seal was taken on a piece of cloth Ex.PW-1/B. He also identified the charas Ex.P1 and sample parcel Ex.P2. He also identified currency notes of Rs.16,000/- Ex.P3 and mobile phone Ex.P4. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not prepare any record as to the information before proceeding to the spot. He stated that he reached the spot at about 6.00 A.M. and stayed there for about 45 minutes. He stated that accused was not arrested in his presence. He further stated that he did not inform his superior officer of the incident. 15. PW-2 Ranbir Singh, one of the independent witness, stated in his statement that at about 5-6 months ago at about 11.00 P.M. police officials came to his dhaba and asked him to provide weighing scale and thereafter weighed some material contained in the polythene bag and at that time accused present in Court was accompanying the police. He also stated that nothing was recovered from the accused in his presence. Though prosecution has declared this witness hostile but he was cross-examined at length. Cross-examination of PW-2 clearly established that he denied most of the suggestions put to him by learned Public Prosecutor. He has admitted his signatures on Memo Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B but stated that police had obtained my signatures on certain papers at my dhaba. He also admitted that sample parcel Ex.P2 and the parcel containing charas Ex.P1 bears his signatures. In his cross-examination he admitted that Dy.S.P. was called to the spot and he arrived at spot after the aforementioned car had been intercepted. In his cross-examination he has stated that Dy.S.P. PW-1 arrived at his dhaba during night intervening June, 25/26, 2007. If the statement given by PW-2 is read in its entirety, it totally falsifies the statement given by PW-1 which is also full of contradictions when read juxtaposing statements given by other witnesses. 16. In his cross-examination he has stated that Dy.S.P. PW-1 arrived at his dhaba during night intervening June, 25/26, 2007. If the statement given by PW-2 is read in its entirety, it totally falsifies the statement given by PW-1 which is also full of contradictions when read juxtaposing statements given by other witnesses. 16. PW-3 Smt. Urmila Devi, Prdhan of Gram Panchayat, issued the certificate Ex.PW-3/A. In her cross-examination she has stated that in the house where accused Rajiv Kumar resides, his mother, grand-mother, uncle and aunt also reside but at this stage also prosecution failed to explain that why Pradhan was not associated while alleged second recovery was being effected from the house at the instance of accused Rajiv Kumar. 17. PW-4, Sh.Bhutto, who has been cited as an independent witness, has also been declared hostile but crossexamined at length by the Public Prosecutor. He has also admitted his signatures on documents Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW- 4/B. He has very categorically stated that his signatures were obtained on these papers at police station. 18. PW-5 Sanjv Kumar stated that he is working at the dhaba of Ranbir Singh. Though he admitted his signatures on the memos Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B but he has also been declared hostile. In cross-examination he has stated that his signatures were taken by the police with reference to weighment of charas at dhaba. 19. PW-7 Sanjiv Kumar stated that he had taken information letter, as required under Section 42 of the ND & PS Act, to SP, Una. As per his statement on 24.6.2007, around 11.30 A.M. PW-10 SI Diwan Chand, SHO, Police Station, Bangana, had handed over to him information as envisaged under Section 42 of ND & PS Act with the direction to handover the same to SP, Una. In cross-examination he stated that no daily diary report was drawn. 20. PW-8 HHC Chinda Ram deposed regarding depositing the three sealed sample parcels and NCB form at FSL, Junga on 26.7.2007 after receiving the same from HC Ravi Dutt, the then MHC, Police Station, Bangana. In his crossexamination he admitted that his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by Investigating Officer and before whom he had stated that MHC Ravi Dutt had handed over to him three pieces of cloth bearing specimen seal impressions, however, this does not find mention in his statement Ex.PW-8A. 21. In his crossexamination he admitted that his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by Investigating Officer and before whom he had stated that MHC Ravi Dutt had handed over to him three pieces of cloth bearing specimen seal impressions, however, this does not find mention in his statement Ex.PW-8A. 21. PW-9 HC Sucha Singh stated that on 25.6.2007 accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-4/A in his presence that he had kept charas and opium in his house in village Choker and that the key of the house was with him. He stated that he and PW-4 Bhutto attested the memos. As per his version, accused led the police party to his residential house to village Choker, opened the lock of the room with the key he was having with him and produced contraband laying underneath a charpai i.e. two polythene bags containing charas and opium. He stated that the Investigator reduced the disclosure statement into writing i.e. Ex.PW-4/A, to which he and PW-4 Bhutto were attestator. However, Bhutto PW-4 has denied and stated that police had obtained signatures in police station. 22. PW-10 SI Diwan Chand deposed that when in the intervening night of June 24/25, 2007 at about 11.30 P.M. he was interrogating one Sanjiv Kumar in a criminal case related to FIR No.56/2007, detail of which has not been placed on record, Sanjiv Kumar revealed that accused Rajiv Kumar would be on his way to Una from Hamirpur that night carrying charas and opium. He stated that he recorded daily diary reports Ex.PW- 10/A and Ex.PW-10/B and the case was registered vide FIR Ex.PW-10/C. Though we have already dealt with statement of PW-10 while dealing with the aspect of compliance of Section 42 of ND & PS Act but now with a view to examine the case of prosecution with regard to recovery of alleged contraband again we intend to refer to the statement given by PW-10. As per his statement after getting aforesaid information he sent information to SP, Una under Section 42 of the Act vide Ex.PW- 10/D. He stated that thereafter he directed ASI Ram Ditta PW- 15 and some other police officials to lay a naka on the road. At this stage, it remains unexplained that when he had prior information of contraband being smuggled, why did not he himself go to the alleged naka. At this stage, it remains unexplained that when he had prior information of contraband being smuggled, why did not he himself go to the alleged naka. It also remains unexplained that why Sanjiv Kumar, who allegedly had given information with regard to charas being carried by the accused Rajiv Kumar, was not cited as a prosecution witness nor any record with regard to FIR No.56/2007 with respect to Sanjiv Kumar was placed on record. It is further stated that on 25.6.2007 ASI Ram Ditta PW-15 handed over to him three sealed parcels containing charas and sample charas sealed with seal `R’. He further stated that on the same day at about 11.00 P.M. ASI Ram Ditta produced before him six sealed parcels one of which was said to be contained charas, the other, opium and remaining four sample parcels alongwith form NCB and specimen impression on 6 pieces of cloth of seal `Ka’. As per his statement he resealed the case property and filled in the columns of NCB forms and deposited the same with MHC. In his statement he has not specifically stated the time when he had actually received the sealed parcels from ASI Ram Ditta. As per statement of ASI Dram Ditta PW-15 he had come to police station Bangana at 6.00 A.M. and handed over the sealed parcels of contraband with seals to PW-10 Diwan Chand but PW-10 has not stated anything with regard to time though he has stated that about 11.00 P.M. ASI Ram Ditta produced before him six sealed parcels one of which was containing charas, six sealed parcels one of which was said to be containing charas, the other, opium and remaining four sample parcels alongwith form NCB and specimen impression on 6 pieces of cloth of seal `Ka’ which shows that he was referring to alleged second recovery of charas which was allegedly made from the house of the accused. 23. PW-11 SI Sher Singh stated in his statement that during investigation he has recorded the statements of MHC Ravi Dutt, HC Chinda Ram and Dy.S.P. Devakar Sharma. He also stated that on completion of investigation he prepared the charge sheet in the case and got the same presented in the Court. 24. 23. PW-11 SI Sher Singh stated in his statement that during investigation he has recorded the statements of MHC Ravi Dutt, HC Chinda Ram and Dy.S.P. Devakar Sharma. He also stated that on completion of investigation he prepared the charge sheet in the case and got the same presented in the Court. 24. ASI Moti Lal appeared as PW-12 and stated that SP, Una, on 25.6.2007 handed over to him information report Ex.PW-10/D. He also identified the initials of SP, Una on special report Ex.PW-12/A. 25. PW-13 Ravi Dutt, MHC, Police Station, Bangana has deposed the aforementioned articles were deposited with him by SI Diwan Chand. 26. PW-14 ASI Jagtar Chand has stated that he alongwith ASI Ram Ditta and other police officials laid a naka at village Bhalet in front of dhaba of Ranbir Singh at about 12.00 midnight. He even stated that at about 4.45 A.M. a maruti car No.HP-22A-2685 came from Lathani side which was intercepted. He also supported the version put forth by the prosecution witnesses that after interception accused was given option to get himself searched infront of Magistrate or any gazetted officer or by the police. Accused opted that the search to be conducted by gazetted officer. Ex.PW-2/A memo was prepared in this behalf. He stated that Dy.S.P. was called on spot whereby he gave his personal search to the accused and thereafter police officials gave their personal search to the accused in the presence of independent witnesses which have been specifically denied by alleged independent witnesses PW-2Ranbir Singh and PW-5 Sanjiv Kumar. Moreover, Dy.S.P. PW-1 Devakar Sharma himself has stated in cross-examination that he had not prepared any record before coming for personal search. He also stated that Rs.16,000/- were recovered during personal search of the accused. He also supported the case of the prosecution with regard to recovery of polythene bag from the rear seat of car containing charas, which on weighment was found to be 1 Kg. He also stated that two samples of 20 grams each were taken from the recovered charas and made into separate parcels, which was sealed with seal of `R’. The bulk charas was also sealed with the same seal `R’. He also stated that two samples of 20 grams each were taken from the recovered charas and made into separate parcels, which was sealed with seal of `R’. The bulk charas was also sealed with the same seal `R’. Alleged recovery memo Ex.PW-1/A was prepared to which the witnesses PW-2 Ranbir Singh and PW-5 Sanjiv Kumar were attestators, however, they denied the contents of PW-1/A. The specimen impressions of the seal were taken on a piece of cloth. Ex.PW-1/B is the piece of cloth, which bears specimen seal impressions of the seal of `R’ and thereafter NCB form Ex.PW-2/A was completed and recovery memo Ex.PW-1/A was prepared which bears his signatures and that all the witnesses and the accused. He stated that seal after use was handed over to Ranbir Singh PW- 2. PW-1 Dy.S.P. Devakar Sharma stated that on reaching spot, he made enquiries from police and Investigator had already prepared option memo before he reached the spot. He specifically stated in cross examination that he did not ask the accused, if he wanted personal search to be made from him or some other official. As per his version during personal search of the accused one Nokia Phone 2300 was recovered and taken into possession vide Ex.P4 and accused was not arrested in his presence. But in his examination-in-chief he himself stated that during personal search of accused only currency notes of Rs.16,000/- were found and there is no mention of Mobile phone. He also admitted in his cross-examination that police party was aware that they were to intercept and search the vehicle carrying contraband. A careful reading of the statement given by this prosecution witness in his examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination clearly indicates that second alleged personal search of accused was conducted before the arrest of the accused because this prosecution witness has categorically stated that after carrying out second personal search of accused he was taken to police station meaning thereby that at that time PW-1 Dy.S.P. Devakar Sharma was also present there. It is also not understood at this stage that how PW-1 Dy.S.P. Devakar Sharma could not lay his hands to key and mobile phone, which were allegedly recovered in second search, while carrying out personal search of the accused at first instance being a gazetted officer. This raises serious doubt with regard to veracity and correctness of story of the prosecution. 27. This raises serious doubt with regard to veracity and correctness of story of the prosecution. 27. PW-15 ASI Ram Ditta also supported the story of the prosecution with regard to laying of naka, recovery of charas from maruti car and Rs.16,000/- from the person of accused. He stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the NCB form. He categorically stated that he interrogated the accused in the presence of PW-4 Bhutto and PW-9 Sucha Singh in police station which fact has been specifically denied by PW-4 Bhutto. He also endorsed story of prosecution with regard to recovery of charas and opium from his residential house at village Chokar. He also stated that he prepared seizure memo Ex.PW-4/A in presence of the witnesses and one of the sample impression is Ex.PW-15/D which was also not supported by independent witnesses. But PW-4 Bhutto has not supported the story of second recovery put forth by prosecution. 28. He further stated that he prepared site plan Ex.PW- 15/E and thereafter again deposited the recoveries made in the second lot before the SI Diwan Chand alongwith NCB forms and seal impression. During his entire statement he has not specifically stated about the timing when he actually deposited contraband after recovery on both the occasions with the SI Diwan Chand. 29. Now, after perusing the statement of each prosecution witness as well as documents exhibited on record, it is evident that police had laid a naka on the Hamirpur-Una Highway at Bangana on 24/25th June, 2007 on the basis of information allegedly revealed by one Sanjiv Kumar, who has been not cited as a prosecution witness for the reasons best known to the prosecution. At the very outset after examining the testimony of PW-10 we have noticed various discrepancies which the police committed while complying with the provisions contained in Section 42 of the ND & PS Act. Though there was enough time between getting information and actually effecting search on the person of accused and police could also make an attempt to procure search warrant from concerned authority for making necessary compliance of Section 42 of the ND & PS Act. But in this case no document has been made available on record suggesting that any effort was made by the police authorities to procure search warrant from the authority envisaged under the relevant Section. But in this case no document has been made available on record suggesting that any effort was made by the police authorities to procure search warrant from the authority envisaged under the relevant Section. In this case even police has not resorted to second option which they could avail by recording reasons in writing for not procuring the warrant of search. Learned trial Court has rightly concluded that no document whatsoever was made available to Court which could be suggestive of compliance of Section 42. Rather learned Public Prosecutor while arguing before the learned trial Court has admitted that evidence would have destroyed in case the police party had waited for warrant of arrest but same time he did not render any explanation with regard to failure on part of Investigating Officer in not recording the reasons for not procuring search warrant before effecting recovery on the person of the accused. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that there was no sufficient compliance of Section 42 of the Act and it has been rightly held by learned trial Court below. 30. Now, if we peruse the statements given by prosecution witnesses it can be safely inferred that there are major contradictions and story put forth by prosecution appears to be untrustworthy and unreliable. None of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution story and they all have turned hostile except admitting their signatures on the memos they have not admitted anything. They have explained the circumstances for signing the memos where they specifically stated that they were made to sign in the police station. 31. Now, if we advert to statement given by PW-1 Dy.S.P. Devakar Sharma, who actually searched the accused being gazetted officer, he does not support the story put forth by the prosecution. In his statement initially he has stated that he reached the spot at 5.00 A.M. but in his cross-examination he categorically states that he reached the spot at 6.00 A.M. Now, if we peruse his statement juxtaposing the same with statement given by PW-2 and PW-5 where they have stated that at about 11.00 P.M. police officials came to his dhaba and weighed some material contained in the polythene bag. He also stated that Dy.S.P. arrived at his dhaba during night intervening July 25/26th, 2007. He also stated that Dy.S.P. arrived at his dhaba during night intervening July 25/26th, 2007. Statement made by PW-3 totally belies the version given by PW-1 with regard to timing of his arrival on the spot. Interestingly, PW-1 in his statement nowhere states with regard to recovery of key and mobile phone during personal search carried out by him being gazetted officer. But during his examination while identifying currency notes he also identified mobile phone Ex.P4 which was actually never recovered in his presence as per prosecution story. He also stated that accused was not arrested in his presence. In his statement he has nowhere stated that who contacted him for causing search on the body of the accused and on whose direction or request he reached the spot carried out personal search in compliance of Section 50 of the ND & PS Act. He stated that he reached the spot at about 6.00 A.M. and stayed there about 45 minutes meaning thereby he was on the spot till 6.45 A.M. alongwith the police team. On the other hand, PW-15 ASI Ram Ditta, stated that after recovering the contraband he returned to the police station at 6.00 A.M. In view of the statement made by ASI Ram Ditta, story of carrying out recovery of alleged contraband in the presence of PW-1 becomes doubtful. It has also come in the statement of PW-15 that information was sent to SP, Una to send gazetted officer on spot at about 12.30 A.M. PW-1 Dy.S.P. Devakar Sharma states that he reached the spot at 5.00 A.M. but it has come on record in his statement that he was informed/asked by ASI Ram Ditta to come to spot and he reached there at 6.00 A.M. PW-15 has further stated that he requested SP, Una to send the gazetted officer at the spot. Ex.DW-1/A shows that Dy.S.P. (HQ) was already at Bangana. Ex.PW-2/B is the memo of personal search of the official witnesses and the signatures of the witnesses and accused are appearing in original but in mark `A’ now Ex.DA/1, which is a carbon copy of Ex.PW-2/B, the signatures of Dy.S.P. appears in original and the signatures of all other persons are carbon impression. Ex.PW-2/B is the memo of personal search of the official witnesses and the signatures of the witnesses and accused are appearing in original but in mark `A’ now Ex.DA/1, which is a carbon copy of Ex.PW-2/B, the signatures of Dy.S.P. appears in original and the signatures of all other persons are carbon impression. This also casts suspicion with regard to signatures of the witnesses taken at the same point of time when the signatures appended by Dy.S.P., rather this fact strengthen the version of independent witnesses PW-5 Sanjiv Kumar and PW-2 Ranbir Singh that they were made to sign the papers in the police station. Dy.S.P PW-1 has not stated anything with regard to recovery of any key as well as mobile phone from the possession of the accused with which the lock of the house of the accused was opened. It is also not understood that when search was actually carried out by Dy.S.P. PW-1 being a gazetted officer and currency notes of Rs.16,000/- were recovered from the person of the accused, what provoked police party to again make search on the person of accused. It is the statement of PW-15 ASI Ram Ditta that after recovering contraband accused was informed that he is required to be arrested but before he could be brought to police station he was again searched and in that search one key and mobile phone were found from the possession of the accused. Silence of PW-1 with regard to recovery of key and mobile phone and second alleged recovery from the house raises serious doubt in our mind with regard to alleged recovery, if any, made by the police. Prosecution has miserably failed to show that why no independent witness/Pradhan of village from where the second alleged recovery was effected was associated, hence it is not understood that why she was not associated in recovery. 32. PW-15 ASI Ram Ditta stated in his crossexamination that there are 8-10 houses in the village of the accused and he had made efforts to join witness to the search but none was ready to become witness. He further stated that he did not know that the house of Pradhan is at a distance of 100 meters from the house of the accused and he had not gone to the house of the Pradhan. He further stated that he did not know that the house of Pradhan is at a distance of 100 meters from the house of the accused and he had not gone to the house of the Pradhan. He categorically stated that he did not ask anyone in the village Chokar to witness as none was available in the village. As per his statement the search of the house was completed at 11.00 A.M. But fact remains that vide Ex.PW-3/A resident certificate was taken from Pradhan. 33. He also stated that he has intimated SP, Una from his personal cell phone and he had no record regarding the transmission of information to SP, Una. He further stated that SP, Una informed him that he will be sending a gazettd officer but he has not recorded that information in any record. 34. PW-13 Ravi Dutt stated that case property was deposited by ASI Ram Ditta Ex.DA but in a statement which was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.DA he has not stated as such. To the contrary, he has recorded that the sample seal impression was deposited with him. It also emerges from the record that no specimen of seals were sent alongwith sample parcels in FSL, Junga. If the original statement made by PW-13 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is seen then it cannot be concluded that the sample remained in the safe custody till it was handed over to FSL, Junga. 35. From the totality of the evidence available on record, it appears that learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the link evidence is missing and has rightly rejected the case of the prosecution relying upon various pronouncements by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 36. Now, if we advert to the statement of PW-9 HC Sucha Singh, he states that interrogation was made between 11.00 to 12.00 A.M. on June 25, 2007. Second witness of the memo i.e. Ex.PW-4/A disclosure statement stated to be given by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has turned hostile i.e. PW-4 Bhutto. As per statement made by PW- 15 disclosure statement was prepared at 6.30 A.M. on 25.6.2007 in the police station but PW-9 states that the search where the opium was recovered was conducted at 3.30 A.M. on 25.6.2007. As per statement made by PW- 15 disclosure statement was prepared at 6.30 A.M. on 25.6.2007 in the police station but PW-9 states that the search where the opium was recovered was conducted at 3.30 A.M. on 25.6.2007. If we now peruse the daily diary report No.33 Ex.PW-1/E Investigating Officer has left the police station, Bangana at 8.30 A.M. On the other hand PW-5 states that search was (second at house) conducted at 11.00 A.M. Perusal of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis Exhibits stated hereinabove clearly makes story of prosecution doubtful and untrustworthy. After perusing the aforesaid statements made by prosecution witnesses even PW-1/F and Ex.PW-1/G nowhere suggest that PW-5 Sanjiv Kumar was ever present when the recovery was effected at the house of accused. Story of recovery of key and mobile phone from the person of accused after second search allegedly carried out by police coupled with the fact that none of the independent witnesses supported the version with regard to recovery of contraband from the house of accused at his instance becomes doubtful and cannot be believed. Even the documentary evidence placed on record by prosecution itself suggests that there are contradictions in the statements given by PW-15 and PW-5 with regard to timing of carrying second search at the house of the accused. All the independent witnesses, though they turned hostile, have specifically stated in their cross-examination that no recovery was effected in their presence and only weighing was done before them and they had signed the memo in the police station. These independent witnesses PW-3 and PW-5 in their crossexamination have stated that at 11.00 P.M. police had come to their dhaba for weighing something and at that time Dy.S.P. was also called. It is very version of the PW-3 which falsifies the entire story of recovering contraband in the morning between 5.00 to 6.00 A.M. After analyzing the statement of each and every prosecution witness and the documents exhibited on record, we have no hesitation to conclude that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the recoveries as have been projected in prosecution case. All the prosecution witnesses have contradicted in their statements and in no manner these contradictions can be termed as minor discrepancies. 37. All the prosecution witnesses have contradicted in their statements and in no manner these contradictions can be termed as minor discrepancies. 37. Appellant specifically argued that there was sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the ND & PS Act in the present case and as such finding of trial Court with regard to non-compliance of Section 50 of the ND & PS Act deserves to be quashed. Section 50 provides:- “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, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of 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 sub-section (1). (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such 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) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. 1[(5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) After a search is conducted under subsection (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.” 38. In the present case we have already held that there is no sufficient compliance of Section 42 of the ND & PS Act. (6) After a search is conducted under subsection (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.” 38. In the present case we have already held that there is no sufficient compliance of Section 42 of the ND & PS Act. Moreover, no document has been placed on record suggesting that SP, Una, in compliance of Section 42, had actually authorized PW-1 Dy.S.P. Devakar Sharma to carryout personal search as required under Section 50 of the ND & PS Act. 39. In the present case PW-1 Dy.S.P. Devakar Sharma has categorically stated in his statement that after receiving the information from ASI Ram Ditta he reached the spot and accused opted for his search to be made from gazetted officer. PW-14 has stated that accused was informed about the option and thereafter he made option to be searched before gazetted officer or before the magistrate or a police officer. The accused was given option for his personal search and the search of vehicle. Accused given option to be searched before gazetted officer. The memo of option was prepared which is Ex.PW-2/A and it also bears the signatures of PW2 Ranbir Singh and PW-5 Sanjiv Kumar who have turned hostile. But they in crossexamination have stated that these signatures on option memo Ex.PW-2/A were procured by police on the pretext that signatures are with regard to recovery of charas. PW-15 Ram Ditta also stated that accused was told that he was suspected of carrying charas on his person and in vehicle and he was given option to get himself searched infront of Magistrate or any gazetted officer or by the police. Undisputedly there are major contradictions with regard to presence of PW-1 being a gazetted officer in compliance of Section 50 of the ND & PS Act because no authorization in terms of Section 42 has been placed on record. Records suggest that PW-1 was already present at Bangana. Moreover, both the independent witnesses have denied that accused was given option in their presence and they have rendered explanation for putting signatures on option memo Ex.PW-2/A. Hence, we do not see any reason to differ with the finding of trial Court with regard to non-com;pliance of Section 50 of the ND & PS Act. 40. Moreover, both the independent witnesses have denied that accused was given option in their presence and they have rendered explanation for putting signatures on option memo Ex.PW-2/A. Hence, we do not see any reason to differ with the finding of trial Court with regard to non-com;pliance of Section 50 of the ND & PS Act. 40. Detailed deliberation/discussion made hereinabove leaves no doubt in our mind that in the present facts and circumstances of the case there has been no substantial compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of ND & PS Act. Hon’ble Apex Court in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009)8 SCC 539 , while dealing with the aspect of compliance of Section 42, has observed:- “17. It is clear from Sajan Abraham (supra) that to enforce the law under the NDPS Act stringently against the persons involved in illicit drug trafficking and drug abuse, the legislature has made some of its provisions obligatory for the prosecution to comply with, which the courts have interpreted to be mandatory. It is further clear that this is in order to balance the stringency for an accused by casting an obligation on the prosecution for its strict compliance. The court however while construing such provisions strictly should not interpret them literally so as to render their compliance impossible. It concluded that if in a case, the strict following of a mandate results in delay in trapping an accused, which may lead the accused to escape, then the prosecution case should not be thrown out. It is also clear that when substantial compliance has been made it would not vitiate the prosecution case. “35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is 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 Section 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 concerned Register 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 of requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of 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 nonsending 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. (Pages 548, 554-555) 41. In Kishan Chand vs. State of Haryana, (2013)2 SCC 502 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:- “17. In our considered view, this controversy is no more res integra and stands answered by a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Karnail Singh (supra). In that judgment, the Court in the very opening paragraph noticed that in the case of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat [ (2000) 2 SCC 513 ], a three Judge Bench of the Court had held that compliance of Section 42 of the Act is mandatory and failure to take down the information in writing and sending the report forthwith to the immediate officer superior may cause prejudice to the accused. However, in the case of Sajan Abraham (supra), again a Bench of three Judges, held that this provision is not mandatory and substantial compliance was sufficient. The Court noticed, if there is total non-compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, it would adversely affect the prosecution case and to that extent, it is mandatory. But, if there is delay, whether it was undue or whether the same was explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case. The Court in paragraph 35 of the judgment held as under:- 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 Court in paragraph 35 of the judgment held as under:- 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. 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. 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. 18. Following the above judgment, a Bench of this Court in the case of Rajinder Singh (supra) took the view that total non-compliance of the provisions of sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 of the Act is impermissible but delayed compliance with a satisfactory explanation for delay can, however, be countenanced. 19. The provisions like Section 42 or 50 of the Act are the provisions which require exact and definite compliance as opposed to the principle of substantial compliance. The Constitution Bench in the case of Karnail Singh (supra) carved out an exception which is not founded on substantial compliance but is based upon delayed compliance duly explained by definite and reliable grounds. 20. While dealing with the requirement of complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act and keeping in mind its mandatory nature, a Bench of this Court held that there is need for exact compliance without any attribute to the element of prejudice, where there is an admitted or apparent non-compliance. 20. While dealing with the requirement of complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act and keeping in mind its mandatory nature, a Bench of this Court held that there is need for exact compliance without any attribute to the element of prejudice, where there is an admitted or apparent non-compliance. The Court in the case of State of Delhi v. Ram Avtar alias Rama [ (2011) 12 SCC 207 ], held as under:- 26. The High Court while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Baldev Singh and rejecting the theory of substantial compliance, which had been suggested in Joseph Fernandez, found that the intimation did not satisfy the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The Court reasoned that the expression “duly” used in Section 50 of the Act connotes not “substantial” but “exact and definite compliance”. Vide Ext. PW 6/A, the appellant was informed that a gazetted officer or a Magistrate could be arranged for taking his search, if he so required. This intimation could not be treated as communicating to the appellant that he had a right under law, to be searched before the said authorities. As the recovery itself was illegal, the conviction and sentence has to be set aside. 27. It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that when a safeguard or a right is provided, favouring the accused, compliance therewith should be strictly construed. As already held by the Constitution Bench in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja, the theory of “substantial compliance” would not be applicable to such situations, particularly where the punishment provided is very harsh and is likely to cause serious prejudice against the suspect. The safeguard cannot be treated as a formality, but it must be construed in its proper perspective, compliance therewith must be ensured. The law has provided a right to the accused, and makes it obligatory upon the officer concerned to make the suspect aware of such right. The officer had prior information of the raid; thus, he was expected to be prepared for carrying out his duties of investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. While discharging the onus of Section 50 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish that information regarding the existence of such a right had been given to the suspect. While discharging the onus of Section 50 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish that information regarding the existence of such a right had been given to the suspect. If such information is incomplete and ambiguous, then it cannot be construed to satisfy the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would cause prejudice to the accused, and, therefore, amount to the denial of a fair trial. 21. When there is total and definite noncompliance of such statutory provisions, the question of prejudice loses its significance. It will per se amount to prejudice. These are indefeasible, protective rights vested in a suspect and are incapable of being shadowed on the strength of substantial compliance.” (Pages 510-513) 42. In Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013)2 SCC 67 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court: “8. We may, in this connection, also examine the general maxim “ignorantia juris non excusat” and whether in such a situation the accused could take a defence that he was unaware of the procedure laid down in Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Ignorance does not normally afford any defence under the criminal law, since a person is presumed to know the law. Indisputedly ignorance of law often in reality exists, though as a general proposition, it is true, that knowledge of law must be imputed to every person. But it must be too much to impute knowledge in certain situations, for example, we cannot expect a rustic villager, totally illiterate, a poor man on the street, to be aware of the various law laid down in this country i.e. leave aside the NDPS Act. We notice this fact is also within the knowledge of the legislature, possibly for that reason the legislature in its wisdom imposed an obligation on the authorized officer acting under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to inform the suspect of his right under Section 50 to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate warranting strict compliance of that procedure.” (Pages 70-71) 43. In Gurjant singh alias Janta vs. State of Punjab, (2014)13 SCC 603 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:- “24. In Gurjant singh alias Janta vs. State of Punjab, (2014)13 SCC 603 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:- “24. In other words, the purpose of Section 50 was to ensure that on the one hand, the holding of a search and seizure was not a farce of an exercise in order to falsely implicate a person by unscrupulous police authorities, while on the other hand to prevent an accused from committing an offence of a serious nature against the society, warranting appropriate criminal proceedings to be launched and in the event of establishing such offence, conviction and sentence to be imposed in accordance with law. Therefore, such a dual requirement of law prescribed under Section 50 cannot be dealt with lightly by the Courts dealing with the trial of such offences brought before it.” (pages 611-612) 44. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned trial Court below which appears to be based upon correct appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence on record and law laid down by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged.