JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. This appeal takes exception to judgment and order dated 9/8/2005 passed by Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No.10/2004 by which appellant/accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act") and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. It is noted that vide charge (Exh. 2), accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act, but the impugned judgment does not reveal that accused is either acquitted or convicted for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. 3. In brief, it is the case of prosecution that on 17/8/2004, P.W.5 Ashok Jot, Police Inspector, who was attached to Police Station, Ballarsha, received secret information at 21.10 hours that accused had stored contraband ganja in his house for the purpose of sale. As per the information, house is stated to be situated near Puja Colour Lab at Dadabhai Nouraji Ward, Ballarsha. Information was reduced into writing in the station diary and was given to Shri Walve, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chandrapur. Based on information as aforesaid, P.W.5 Ashok Jot, P.I. arranged for two panch witnesses, P.W.7 Suresh Dhage, Naib Tahsildar, photographer, etc. and on collecting necessary articles for effecting raid, effected raid on the house of accused on the same day at 22.40 hours and in the presence of accused, seized 7.4 kgs. of ganja from his house. One sample of 250 grams came to be drawn from the seized quantity and remaining ganja was sealed separately and deposited in Malkhana after taking entry in the muddemal register. Panchanama of all these facts was drawn vide Exh. 6. 4. Thereafter, P.W.5 Ashok Jot, P.I. lodged report, upon which Crime No. 3058/2004 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act. Printed First Information Report is at Exh. 56. P.W.5 Ashok Jot effected arrest of accused and took steps for ascertaining ownership of house wherefrom contraband ganja came to be seized by issuing requisition letter (Exh. 60) to Municipal Council and collected house tax receipt as well as electricity bill in respect of house of accused, which are at Exhs. Printed First Information Report is at Exh. 56. P.W.5 Ashok Jot effected arrest of accused and took steps for ascertaining ownership of house wherefrom contraband ganja came to be seized by issuing requisition letter (Exh. 60) to Municipal Council and collected house tax receipt as well as electricity bill in respect of house of accused, which are at Exhs. 61 and 62. It is the case of prosecution that in compliance to requisition by Investigation Officer, it was informed by Municipal Council, Ballarpur vide Exh. 63 that the house wherefrom contraband article came to be seized was owned by wife of accused. 5. It is the further case of prosecution that in compliance to Section 52 of the NDPS Act, though P.W.5 Ashok Jot had applied for issuing certificate to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajura, his application was rejected on the ground that such certificate is already obtained by the Investigating Officer from Executive Magistrate and as such, no other certificate was required. Order as aforesaid is on record at Exh. 64. After recording statements and on sending samples to Chemical Analyser for analysis vide requisition memo (Exh. 65), Chemical Analyser's report was received vide Exh.66. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before Special Court. 6. Charge was framed against accused vide Exh. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. Defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication. 7. To establish the charge, prosecution in all examined eight witnesses and commenced its evidence by examining P.W.1 Baban and P.W.2 Sachin, both panch witnesses on house search of accused, who did not support the case of prosecution and were declared hostile, P.W.3 Ramesh, Police Constable (carrier), P.W.4 Narendra, photographer, P.W.5 Ashok Jot, Investigating Officer, P.W.6 Kishor, panch witness in whose presence seized contraband came to be weighed, who, however, did not support the case of prosecution, P.W.7 Suresh, Naib Tahsildar, who was present along with the Investigating team at the time of raid and concluded evidence on examining P.W.8 Prabhakar, employee from Municipal Council, who has proved document establishing that house involved in this case was owned by wife of accused. Accused did not examine any witness in support of his defence. 8. Accused did not examine any witness in support of his defence. 8. Learned Special Judge considering the evidence and documents on record convicted accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 9. Shri Daga, learned Counsel for appellant/accused, has submitted that except evidence of P.W.5 Ashok Jot, Investigating Officer, there is no evidence establishing involvement of accused in the present crime. It is contended that even evidence of Investigating Officer is not reliable since has no independent corroboration of panch witnesses to the case of prosecution that 7.4 kgs. of contraband ganja came to be seized from the house, which though owned by wife of accused was also occupied by accused. It is further contended that even there is no compliance of Section 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act in spite of the fact that the case of prosecution is based on secret information received by Police. It is further submitted that admittedly contraband ganja alleged to be seized as recovered from the house of accused involved in the present crime was not produced before the trial Court and thus, said facts do not establish, if material seized is contraband ganja or otherwise. It is, therefore, submitted that for want of sufficient evidence, appeal may be allowed as prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. In support of submissions, learned Counsel for accused has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gorakh Nath Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (2018) 2 SCC 305 and in the case of Union of India vs. Bal Mukund and Others, (2009) AllMR(Cri) 1570 (S.C.). 10. On the other hand, Smt. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, has submitted that evidence of P.W.5 Ashok Jot, Investigating Officer is found fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7 Suresh, Naib Tahsildar whose evidence establishes accused's involvement in illegally possessing 7.4 kgs. of ganja. It is contended that merely because independent panch witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that there is no convincing evidence to establish involvement of accused. It is, therefore, submitted that appeal be dismissed. 11. Having considered facts involved in the appeal and arguments advanced as aforesaid, it is noted that admittedly case of prosecution is based on information received by Police and as such, mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act are attracted. It is, therefore, submitted that appeal be dismissed. 11. Having considered facts involved in the appeal and arguments advanced as aforesaid, it is noted that admittedly case of prosecution is based on information received by Police and as such, mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act are attracted. On perusal of Exh. 67A, it is found that there is partial compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act as from this document and oral version of P.W.5 Ashok Jot, Investigating Officer, it is established that information received by him on 17/8/2004 was reduced into writing in the station diary, however, there is nothing to establish compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act as there is no document establishing that information reduced into writing by P.W.5 Ashok was forwarded by him to his immediate superior Officer within 72 hours as contemplated under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. Even P.W.5 Ashok Jot is silent on this aspect as he has only stated about his reducing information received by him in the station diary and that he had given information to Shri Walve, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chandrapur. Admittedly, prosecution has not examined Shri Walve. Even otherwise, according to evidence of Investigating Officer, he had informed his superior Officer as aforesaid. However, his evidence does not establish if information given by him was oral or in writing or by way of forwarding copy of information reduced into writing by him in compliance to Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act to Shri Walve, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chandrapur. In the circumstances, there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act in strict sense. 12. In the background of above facts, learned Counsel for appellant has rightly relied upon the law laid down in the case of Union of India (cited supra), where in para 18 of the judgment, it is observed thus : "(18) Section 42 of the Act mandates compliance of the requirements contained therein, viz. 12. In the background of above facts, learned Counsel for appellant has rightly relied upon the law laid down in the case of Union of India (cited supra), where in para 18 of the judgment, it is observed thus : "(18) Section 42 of the Act mandates compliance of the requirements contained therein, viz. If the Officer has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person, which should be taken down in writing that any drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under the Act has been committed, he is empowered to exercise his power enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 42(1) of the Act between sunrise and sunset. Subject to such exceptions, thus, taking down the information in writing is, therefore, very necessary to be complied with. The proviso appended to Section 42(1) of the Act reads as under : "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." Subsection (2) of Section 42 of the Act provides that such an information reduced in writing should be communicated to his immediate superior Officers within seventy-two hours. The information was received on the previous night. The purported recovery was made at 5 a.m. Even the Senior Superintendent of Police was aware thereof, who had received the information first and directed P.W.7 to conduct the raid. No explanation has been offered as to why the mandatory requirements of law could not be complied with." 13. Similarly, with regards to case of prosecution of its inability to bring on record evidence of panch witnesses or of non production of seized muddemal before the trial Court, in para 7 of the judgment in the case of Gorakh Nath Prasad (supra), cases of Ashok vs. State of M.P., (2011) 5 SCC 123 and Jitendra vs. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 562 , are referred. Para 7 of its judgment is reproduced below : "(7) The remaining prosecution witnesses being Police Officers only, it will not be safe to rely upon their testimony alone, which in any event cannot be sufficient evidence by itself either with regard to recovery or the seized material being ganja. No explanation has also been furnished by the prosecution for non production of the ganja as an exhibit in the trial. The benefit of doubt will, therefore, have to be given to the appellant and in support of which learned Senior Counsel Shri Rai has relied upon Jitendra vs. State of M.P. and reiterated in Ashok vs. State of M.P. as follows : "12. Last but not the least, the alleged narcotic powder seized from the possession of the accused, including the appellant was never produced before the trial Court as a material exhibit and once again there is no explanation for its non production. There is thus, no evidence to connect the forensic report with the substance that was seized from the possession of the appellant or the other accused." 13. It may be noted here that in Jitendra vs. State of M.P., on similar facts this Court held that the material placed on record by the prosecution did not bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and it would be unsafe to maintain their conviction on that basis. In Jitendra, the Court observed and held as under : "5. The evidence to prove that charas and ganja were recovered from the possession of the accused consisted of the evidence of the Police Officers and the panch witnesses. The panch witnesses turned hostile. Thus, we find that apart from the testimony of Rajendra Pathak (P.W.7), Angad Singh (P.W.8) and Sub-Inspector D.J. Rai (P.W.6), there is no independent witness as to the recovery of the drugs from the possession of the accused. The charas and ganja alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused were not even produced before the trial Court, so as to connect them with the samples sent to the forensic science laboratory. The charas and ganja alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused were not even produced before the trial Court, so as to connect them with the samples sent to the forensic science laboratory. There is no material produced in the trial, apart from the interested testimony of the Police Officers, to show that the charas and ganja were seized from the possession of the accused or that the samples sent to the forensic science laboratory were taken from the drugs seized from the possession of the accused.... 6. ... The best evidence would have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects. There is no explanation for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as to their features and production of panchanama does not discharge the heavy burden which lies on the prosecution, particularly where the offence is punishable with a stringent sentence as under the NDPS Act. In this case, we notice that panchas have turned hostile so the panchanama is nothing, but a document written by the Police Officer concerned." The law relied as above can, therefore, be usefully referred as the facts involved in the present appeal are similar since admittedly prosecution has failed to examine independent witnesses and panchas and to produce muddemal contraband before trial Court. 14. Having considered facts as aforesaid and for the reasons mentioned above, it is not necessary to scrutinise evidence of P.W.3 Ramesh (carrier), P.W.4 Narendra, photographer and P.W.8 Prabhakar, who has established ownership of house to be in the name of wife of accused as even if their evidence is considered and acted upon, case of prosecution cannot be said to be substantiated in any manner, thereby establishing involvement of accused in the present crime. Moreover, law laid down in the case of Gorakh Nath Prasad (supra) also makes it amply clear that evidence of prosecution witnesses, who are only Police Officers, is not worth to be relied upon being not safe in the absence of evidence of independent witnesses as in this case also, no other witness except Police Officers have supported. Thus, it will not be safe to rely upon their testimonies alone, which in any event cannot be sufficient evidence by itself with regards to recovery or establishing that seized material is ganja. 15. Thus, it will not be safe to rely upon their testimonies alone, which in any event cannot be sufficient evidence by itself with regards to recovery or establishing that seized material is ganja. 15. In the circumstances, since it is found that there is non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and as there is no corroboration to evidence of Investigating Officer from independent witnesses and as prosecution has even not produced muddemal contraband before trial Court, appeal is liable to be allowed by granting benefit of doubt to accused. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 9/8/2005 passed by Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No.10/2004 is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the offences charged with. Fine amount, if any paid by appellant, be refunded to him.