JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - The appellants Rajesh K.R. and Jobby Sonny in CRLA No.602 of 2014 and appellant George K.A. in CRLA No.667 of 2014 faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi in G.R. Case No.215 of 2011 for offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter "N.D.P.S. Act") on the accusation that on 23.06.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., they were found transporting ganja in a private vehicle bearing registration no.KL-07-AA-2097 in front of Parlakhemundi police station in thirty nine big packets and thirty two small packets consisting of 116 kgs. of ganja without any licence. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2014 found the appellants guilty under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for period of one year each. Since both the appeals arise out of one common judgment, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, those were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (Ext.16), in short, is that the informant Pradyumna Kishore Behera (P.W.4), S.I. of Police, Parlakhemundi police station on the basis of command certificate no.364743 dated 23.06.2011 along with Dibya Lochan Behera (P.W.8), S.I. of Police and other police officials of Parlakhemundi police station left the police station to verify the information regarding the transportation of ganja in a private vehicle bearing registration no.KL-07-AA-2097 as recorded vide S.D.E. No.513 dated 23.06.2011 and at about 4.00 p.m., they detained the said vehicle in front of Parlakhemundi police station and found two persons sitting in the middle seat and one was in the driver"s seat of the vehicle and smell of ganja was coming out of the vehicle. On being asked, the driver of the vehicle disclosed his name and address as Rajesh K.R. (appellant in CRLA No.602 of 2014) and his address and the two persons, who were sitting in the middle seat of the vehicle disclosed their names as Jobby Sonny (appellant in CRLA No.602 of 2014) and George K.A. (appellant in CRLA No.667 of 2014). On being asked, the driver of the vehicle disclosed his name and address as Rajesh K.R. (appellant in CRLA No.602 of 2014) and his address and the two persons, who were sitting in the middle seat of the vehicle disclosed their names as Jobby Sonny (appellant in CRLA No.602 of 2014) and George K.A. (appellant in CRLA No.667 of 2014). The informant (P.W.4) came to believe from the strong smell of contraband ganja coming out of the vehicle that the appellants were in possession of contraband ganja and accordingly, he intimated the fact to the Inspector in-charge of Parlakhemundi police station over phone. He arranged two local independent witnesses i.e. P.W.6 and P.W.7, out of which P.W.7 was the weighman, who had a grocery shop at Khanja Sahi and he arrived at the spot along with his weighing machine. P.W.4 explained the three appellants that they have the right to be searched either before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and when the appellants gave their choice to be searched before one Gazetted Officer in writing, P.W.4 contacted Gopinath Manipatra (P.W.9), D.S.P., D.I.B., Gajapati over phone with a request to remain present during search and seizure. P.W.9 arrived at the spot at 4.15 p.m. and he gave his identity to the appellants and then in presence of P.W.9, the personal search of the police team was taken but nothing incriminating was found except the wearing apparels and pen and when the vehicle was thoroughly searched, it was found that on the concealed roof of the vehicle, thirty nine big packets and thirty two small packets were found from it. Those packets were made into four lots and the polythene paper and synthetic thread from all the packets were removed and it was found to be the flowering and fruiting tops of the cannabis plant locally known as "ganja" and on weighment of the four lots, the total quantity came to 116 kgs. After the ganja was mixed homogenously, 50 grams of sample ganja in two packets from each lot were taken and signatures of the witnesses, appellants and also that of P.W.4 were taken on the envelopes containing the sample of ganja and the samples were kept in cloth cover and stitched and all the exhibits were sealed properly with sealing wax and specimen brass seal. The specimen seal of the brass seal was taken in a plain paper on which the signatures of the witnesses, appellants and P.W.4 were taken and since the three appellants could not produce either any authority or any license in support of such possession of contraband ganja, those were seized and a seizure list was prepared at the spot and the witnesses, appellants and P.W.4 signed the seizure list. The vehicle bearing registration no.KL-07-AA-2097, registration certificate, insurance certificate of the vehicle, driving licence of the driver Rajesh K.R. were also seized under seizure list and it was ascertained that one Krishna Kutty was the owner of the vehicle in question. Since the contraband ganja of commercial quantity were seized from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellants, they were arrested after explaining grounds of arrest and brought to the police station and from the personal search of the appellants, some cash and mobile sets were also seized and three separate seizure lists were prepared in that respect. After returning to the police station, P.W.4 lodged the first information report before the Inspector in-charge of Parlakhemundi police station. On the basis of such first information report, Parlakhemundi P.S. Case No.77 dated 23.06.2011 was registered under sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act by the Inspector in-charge of Parlakhemundi police station and he himself took up investigation of the case. 3. During course of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.10) seized the vehicle, registration certificate, insurance certificate, driving licence of appellant Rajesh K.R., R.C. Book, ganja packets, cash and mobile phones etc. as per seizure list Ext.1. He kept the seized ganja of 116 kgs. in safe custody in the P.S. Malkhana by making Malkhana register entry. He visited the spot which is in front of the police station, examined the seizure witnesses, the informant and other witnesses. On 23.06.2011, he submitted the detailed report to the Superintendent of Police, Gajapati and again seized the same vide Ext.23. On 24.06.2011, he forwarded the appellants to the Court and sent the seized articles to the Court and made prayer to send the samples to R.F.S.L., Berhampur for chemical examination. Chemical examination report (Ext.24) was received which indicated that the exhibits marked as Exts.A-1, B-1, C-1 and D-1 were the fruiting and flowering tops of cannabis plant (ganja). On 24.06.2011, he forwarded the appellants to the Court and sent the seized articles to the Court and made prayer to send the samples to R.F.S.L., Berhampur for chemical examination. Chemical examination report (Ext.24) was received which indicated that the exhibits marked as Exts.A-1, B-1, C-1 and D-1 were the fruiting and flowering tops of cannabis plant (ganja). On completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the appellants under sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4. The appellants were charged under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. P.W.1 Smt. Jamuna Pradhan was the women constable attached to Parlakhemundi police station and she stated that P.W.4 deposited four packets containing ganja marked as A, B, C and D and some papers such as seizure list, zimanama, command certificate before P.W.10, who seized the same and prepared a seizure list vide Ext.1 and she is a witness to the said seizure. P.W.2 Madhab Rao, P.W.3 Sanmukha Patnaik, P.W.6 V. Chandra Sekhar Rao and P.W.7 Manoj Kumar Panda did not support the prosecution case for which they were declared hostile. P.W.4 Pradyumna Kishore Behera, who was the S.I. of Police attached to Parlakhemundi police station and he is also the informant in the case. He stated that on the date of occurrence, the then I.I.C. (P.W.10) got reliable information about illegal transportation of huge quantity of ganja in a car bearing registration no.KL-07-AA-2097 and directed him as well as S.I. of Police D.L. Behera (P.W.8) and Havildar P.Mohapatra (P.W.11) to verify the information and that they left the police station and started conducting patrolling. He further stated that at about 4.00 p.m., they noticed the said car was going towards Berhampur and they detained the car, found the appellants carrying thirty nine big packets and thirty two small packets containing contraband ganja in the vehicle. He seized the vehicle, its registration certificate, insurance certificate, driving licence of appellant Rajesh K.R., who was in the driver"s seat and cash and mobile phones of the appellants. He also took weighment of the contraband ganja and drew sample packets and seized it. He seized the vehicle, its registration certificate, insurance certificate, driving licence of appellant Rajesh K.R., who was in the driver"s seat and cash and mobile phones of the appellants. He also took weighment of the contraband ganja and drew sample packets and seized it. He arrested the appellants, brought the seized articles and the appellants to the police station and lodged the first information report before the Inspector in-charge of Parlakhemundi police station. P.W.5 Gobind Ch. Behera was the Constable attached to Parlakhemundi police station and he is a witness to the seizure of the Malkhana register, command certificate and weighing machine as per seizure lists Ext.17, Ext.18 and Ext.19 respectively. P.W.8 Dibya Lochan Behera was the S.I. of Police attached to Parlakhemundi police station and he accompanied P.W.4 to the spot. He stated about the recovery of contraband ganja along with other articles from the possession of the appellants. P.W.9 Gopinath Manipatra was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, D.I.B. attached to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Gajapati, who on receipt of information from P.W.10 regarding detection of ganja, proceeded to the spot and in his presence, P.W.4 searched the vehicle and recovered thirty nine big packets and thirty two small packets containing contraband ganja which were concealed in the roof of the vehicle and those packets were made to four lots and it was weighted and the total quantity came to 123 kgs. approximately including the wrappers, which were seized as per seizure list Ext.2. P.W.10 Tapan Kumar Padhi was the Inspector in- charge attached to Parlakhemundi police station and he stated that on the report of P.W.4, he registered the case, took up investigation and during investigation, P.W.4 produced the vehicle bearing registration no.KL-07-AA-2097, registration certificate, insurance certificate and driving licence of the appellant Rajesh K.R., ganja packets with some cash and mobile phones, which were again seized by him vide Ext.1. He forwarded the appellants to the Court and also produced the seized articles in the Court and made prayer before the Court to send the samples to R.F.S.L., Berhampur for chemical examination and on completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet. P.W.11 Pandab Mohapatra was the Havildar attached to Parlakhemundi police station and he accompanied P.W.4 to the spot. He forwarded the appellants to the Court and also produced the seized articles in the Court and made prayer before the Court to send the samples to R.F.S.L., Berhampur for chemical examination and on completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet. P.W.11 Pandab Mohapatra was the Havildar attached to Parlakhemundi police station and he accompanied P.W.4 to the spot. He stated about the recovery of contraband ganja from the possession of the appellants and he is also a witness to the seizure of weighing machine, Malkhana register and command certificate. The prosecution exhibited twenty four documents. Exts.1, 17, 18, 19, 20/3 and 23 are the seizure lists, Ext.2 is the seizure list of ganja, Ext.3 is the seizure list of seized cash of Rs.26,800/- and a Videocon mobile phone, Ext.4 is the seizure list of seized cash of Rs.26,000/- and a white coloured Nokia Mobile, Ext.5 is the seizure list of seized cash of Rs.24,000/- and a black coloured Nokia mobile set, Ext.6 is the zimanama, Ext.7 is the notice to George K.A. appellant, Ext.8 is the notice to appellant Jobby Sonny, Ext.9 is the notice to appellant Rajesh K.R., Ext.10 is the search memo, Ext.11 is the specimen impression of brass seal on a separate paper, Ext.12 is the R.C. Book, Ext.13 is the D.L. of appellant Rajesh K.R., Ext.14 is the tax receipt, Ext.15 is the insurance certificate of vehicle seized, Ext.16 is the plain paper F.I.R., Exts.21 and 22 are the signatures of P.W.7 in the zimanama and Ext.24 is the chemical examination report. The prosecution also proved twelve material objects. M.O.I is the Nokia mobile seized from appellant Rejesh K.R., M.O.II is the Videocon mobile seized from appellant Jobby Sonny, M.O.III is the Nokia mobile seized from appellant George K.A., M.O.IV is the sample packet of seized ganja A-2, M.O.V is the sample packet of seized ganja B-2, M.O.VI is the sample packet of seized ganja C-2, M.O.VII is the sample packet of seized ganja D-2, M.O.VIII is the bag-A, M.O.IX is the bag-B, M.O.X is the bag-C, M.O.XI is the bag-D and M.O.XII is the polythene jaris. 6. The defence plea of the appellants was one of denial and it is pleaded that they had come to visit Budha Temple and they have been falsely entangled in the case. 7. 6. The defence plea of the appellants was one of denial and it is pleaded that they had come to visit Budha Temple and they have been falsely entangled in the case. 7. The learned trial Court after analysing the oral as well as documentary evidence on record has been pleased to hold that the evidence adduced by P.Ws.4, 5, 8, 9 and 11 inspired confidence with regard to the search and seizure of contraband ganja in packets from the vehicle, which were in the possession of the appellants at the relevant time. It was further held that there was total compliance of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act by the I.O. of the case. The learned trial Court also accepted the evidence of the official witnesses P.Ws.5, 8, 9 and 11 on the ground that they had no axe to grind against the appellants who belonged to the State of Kerala. It was further held that both the authorized officers, i.e., P.W.4 and P.W.10 have complied with the provisions of sections 42, 55 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act and accordingly, the prosecution was held to have established the charge under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act against the appellants. 8. Mr. Ajaya Kumar Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in CRLA No.602 of 2014 and Mr. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CRLA No.667 of 2014 raised mainly two contentions to challenge the impugned judgment and order of conviction. It was argued that it is a case of prior information received by the police relating to illegal transportation of ganja in a private vehicle and seizure of contraband ganja of commercial quantity from the vehicle. The learned trial Court also held that since it was a case of prior information received by the I.I.C. of Paralakhemundi Police Station, the search and seizure were to be conducted as per section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It was argued that the provision under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with though it has been held to be so by the learned trial Court and therefore, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. It was argued that the provision under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with though it has been held to be so by the learned trial Court and therefore, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. Reliance was placed on the following decisions i.e. Karnail Singh -Vrs.- State of Haryana reported in (2009) 44 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 183, Rajender Singh -Vrs.- State of Haryana reported in 2011 (II) Orissa Law Reviews (SC) 735, State of Rajasthan -Vrs.- Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa reported in (2016) 64 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 827, Ramakrushna Sahu -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in (2018) 70 Orissa Criminal Reports 340, Ghadua Muduli and Another -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in (2018) 71 Orissa Criminal Reports 413, Sumit Kumar Behera and Another -Vrs.- State of Odisha reported in (2019) 74 Orissa Criminal Reports 848 and Abdul Rehman Fakir Mohd. Durani -Vrs.- The State of Maharastra reported in 2001 Criminal Law Journal 4844. Another contention was raised that while imposing substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for twelve years for the offence under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act to each of the appellants, the learned trial Court has not taken into account the provision under section 32-B of the N.D.P.S. Act. Reliance was placed in the case of Sambhulal Tibrewal -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in 2017 (Supp.-II) Orissa Law Reviews 358. Mr. J.P. Patra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and contended that in view of the huge quantity of contraband ganja seized from the possession of the appellants, who were travelling together in a private car, the sentence imposed was quite justified. 9. Before going to deal with the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether the learned trial Court committed error in holding compliance of the provision under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, let me first deal with the arguments relating to substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellants. In paragraph-13 of the impugned judgment which deals with the hearing on question of sentence, the learned trial Court has held as follows: 'The legislature has prescribed stringent punishment for offence under the N.D.P.S. Act. In paragraph-13 of the impugned judgment which deals with the hearing on question of sentence, the learned trial Court has held as follows: 'The legislature has prescribed stringent punishment for offence under the N.D.P.S. Act. In order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on society as a whole, the Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions of by introducing Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine. The section under section 20(b)(ii)(C) N.D.P.S. Act is penal section prescribes punishment i.e. it shall not be less than ten years and may also extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine and the fine amount shall not less than Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) and may also extend to Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs). By taking note of the gravity of the offence committed by the convicts and keeping the age in mind, I am to sentence each of the convicts Sri Rajesh K.R., Sri Jobby Sonny and Sri George K.A. to undergo R.I. for twelve years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) each and in default, to undergo R.I. for one year each for offence under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act in the interest of justice.' In the case of Sambhulal Tibrewal (supra), I had the occasion to deal with an identical point raised in connection with section 32-B of the N.D.P.S. Act, wherein it is held as follows: '11. Coming to the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, I find that after convicting the appellant under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, the learned trial Court has observed that the appellant had kept huge quantity of ganja even inside a secret place in Puja Ghar which he utilized for transaction and therefore, the Court was of the view that the appellant is not entitled to be leniently dealt with. It is further observed that dealing such huge quantity of ganja is an offence more heinous than the offence of homicide. With these reasons, the learned trial Court has imposed substantive sentence of R.I. for 15 years and also directed to the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, (rupees one lakh only), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months. With these reasons, the learned trial Court has imposed substantive sentence of R.I. for 15 years and also directed to the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, (rupees one lakh only), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act prescribes, inter alia, that whoever, in contravention of any provision of the Act or any rule or order made or condition of license granted thereunder possesses cannabis which involves commercial quantity, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees and which may extend to two lakh rupees. Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. Section 32-B of the N.D.P.S. Act deals with factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment which reads as follows:- '32-B. Where a minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine is prescribed for any offence committed under this Act, the Court may, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit, take into account the following factors for imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine, namely:- (a) the use or threat of use of violence or arms by the offender; (b) the fact that the offender holds a public office and that he has taken advantage of that office in committing the offence; (c) the fact that the minors are affected by the offence or the minors are used for the commission of an offence; and (d) the fact that the offence is committed in an educational institution or social service facility or in their immediate vicinity of such institution or faculty or in other place to which school children and students resort for educational, sports and social activities; (e) the fact that the offender belongs to organized international or any other criminal group which is involved in the commission of the offence; and (f) the fact that the offender is involved in other illegal activities facilitated by commission of the offence.' On a bare reading of this section, it is apparent that ordinarily minimum term of imprisonment or fine has to be imposed where it has been so prescribed but if the case comes under any of the clauses i.e. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of section 32-B or any other factors as it may deem fit then the Court may award more punishment than the minimum. On going through the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment, it is clear that none of reasons falls within the category of the clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f). The reasons assigned were not sufficient enough to award more punishment than the minimum. On going through the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment, it is clear that none of reasons falls within the category of the clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f). The reasons assigned were not sufficient enough to award more punishment than the minimum. It is clear that while imposing a substantive sentence of R.I. for fifteen years, the learned trial Court has not kept in view the provision under section 32-B of the N.D.P.S. Act which was inserted in the N.D.P.S. Act w.e.f. 02.10.2001. The occurrence in this case took place on 11.06.2002 and therefore, at the time of imposing sentence, it was the duty of the learned trial Court to take into account the provision under section 32-B of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is the well settled principle of law that substantive provision unless specifically provided for otherwise intended by the Parliament should be held to have a prospective operation. One of the facets of rule of law is also that all statutes should be presumed to have a prospective operation only.' In view of the provisions as enumerated under the clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of section 32-B of the N.D.P.S. Act and looking at the reasons given by the learned trial Court in imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for twelve years, I am of the humble view that the learned Court has not at all kept such provision in mind and simply taking note of the gravity of the offence committed by the appellants has imposed the sentence and therefore, the punishment higher than the minimum punishment imposed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. Adverting to the contentions raised regarding non- compliance of provision under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, let me analyse the ratio of the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 10. Adverting to the contentions raised regarding non- compliance of provision under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, let me analyse the ratio of the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the appellants. In the case of Karnail Singh (supra), a five-Judge Bench of the Hon"ble Supreme Court held as follows:- '11.....The material difference between the provisions of sections 42 and 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act is that section 42 requires recording of reasons for belief and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the commission of an offence before conducting search and seizure, section 43 does not contain any such provision and as such while acting under section 43 of the Act, the empowered officer has the power of seizure of the article etc. and arrest of a person who is found to be in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in a public place where such possession appears to him to be unlawful. x x x x 17. 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 non-sending 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.' In the case of Rajender Singh (supra), the Hon"ble Supreme Court held as follows: '4. A reading of the above said provision pre- supposes that if an authorized officer has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information received by him that some person is dealing in a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance, he should ordinarily take down the information in writing except in cases of urgency which are set out in the section itself. Section 42(2), however, which calls for interpretation in the matter before us, is however categorical that the information if taken down in writing shall be sent to the superior officer forthwith. x x x x 5. It is therefore clear that the total non- compliance with the provisions sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible but delayed compliance with a satisfactory explanation for the delay can, however, be countenanced.' In the case of Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa (supra), it is held as follows: '16. Explanation to Section 43 defines expression "public place" which includes any public conveyance. The word "public conveyance" as used in the Act has to be understood as a conveyance which can be used by public in general. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and thereafter the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were enacted to regulate the law relating to motor vehicles. The vehicles which can be used for public are public Motor Vehicles for which necessary permits have to be obtained. Without obtaining a permit in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no vehicle can be used for transporting passengers. In the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the jeep HR-24 4057 had any permit for transporting the passengers...' x x x x 17......In view of the above, the jeep cannot be said to be a public conveyance within the meaning of Explanation to Section 43. Hence, Section 43 was clearly not attracted and provisions of Section 42(1) proviso were required to be complied with and the aforesaid statutory mandatory provisions having not been complied with, the High Court did not commit any error in setting aside the conviction. In the case of Ramakrushna Sahu (supra), it is held as follows: '12.....The present is not a case where P.W.14 suddenly carried out search at a public place. P.W.14 himself stated that he had received the reliable information while he was at the police station and he has come up with a case of compliance of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. P.W.14 himself stated that he had received the reliable information while he was at the police station and he has come up with a case of compliance of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no material that the offending vehicles come within public conveyance and when the search was conducted after recording information under section 42(1), therefore, even though the seizure was made in a public place during day time, in my humble view, compliance of the provisions of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act is necessary.' In the case of Ghadua Muduli and another (supra), this Court held as follows: '8......The present is not a case where P.W.4 suddenly carried out search in the vehicle at a public place. P.W.4 himself stated that he received the reliable information regarding transportation of ganja in a Bolero vehicle and he has come up with a case of compliance of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no material that the offending vehicle comes within public conveyance and when search was conducted after recording information under section 42(1), therefore, even though the detention was made during night and seizure was made in a public place during day time, compliance of the provisions of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act is mandatory. x x x x ..........In a case of this nature where the prosecution is required to prove the compliance of the mandatory provision under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, all the relevant documents which are connected with such compliance are required to be proved before the trial Court in accordance with law and similarly all the concerned witnesses should be examined in Court to prove the vital aspect. In absence of proof of the oral as well as documentary evidence relating to compliance of such provision, the prosecution case should be viewed with suspicion.' In the case of Sumit Kumar Behera (supra), this Court held as follows: '10.....Under section 42(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, if the empowered officer receives reliable information from any person relating to commission of an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act that the contraband articles and incriminating documents have been kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place and he reasonably believes such information, he has to take down the same in writing. However, if the empowered officer reasonably believes about such aspects from his personal knowledge, he need not take down the same in writing. Similarly recording of grounds of belief before entering and searching any building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise is necessary under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act if the concerned officer has reason to belief that obtaining search warrant or authorization for search during that period would afford opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender. Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act states that when an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior within seventy two hours. x x x x ..........The salutary provision has a very useful purpose. Not only the superior official is required to be aware about the receipt of the reliable information by the concerned officer and his grounds of belief beforehand but also by sending such documents to the superior official, it would check any kind of tampering by the concerned officer with the nature of information received and reduced to writing. It would also safeguard the interest of an accused against false implication.' In the case of Abdul Rahman Fakir Mohd. Durani (supra), a Single Judge of Bombay High Court has held as follows:- '10. When we consider Sections 42 and 43 together, it can be seen that the two sections have distinguished region of operation. Section 42 operates when the authorised officer has personal knowledge or prior information given by any person and taken down in writing. As against this Section 43 does not refer either to personal knowledge of the authorised officer or to any information given by any person and taken down in writing by him. Thus Section 43 comes into play when the authorised officer stumbles over objectionable articles or comes across the person indulging into an offence punishable under Chapter IV without prior knowledge or any information. Thus Section 43 comes into play when the authorised officer stumbles over objectionable articles or comes across the person indulging into an offence punishable under Chapter IV without prior knowledge or any information. To this extent, there is no region, where the two Sections can be said to have overlapping effect, that is there is no situation when section 42 can operate without personal belief or prior information nor there is any zone when Section 43 may come into play although there is prior knowledge of information.' x x x x 13. Pursuant to discussion above the zones of operation of Section 42 and Section 43 can be crystallized as follows: Section 42 (i) Belief on the basis of personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing. (ii) Narcotic drug/psychotropic substance or document/other article informed to be kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place (private as well as public). (iii) Materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal of conveyance liable to confiscation, document or other article furnishing evidence relating such drug or substance to an offence under Chapter IV, all these materials are such which were not part and parcel of the information received. (iv) Any person reasonably believed to have committed offence under Chapter IV (irrespective whether his presence was/was not part of information received). Section 43 (i) No previous information at all. (ii) Narcotic drug/psychotropic substance, which can be believed to be related to offence under Chapter IV; any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation; any document or other article which can be believed to furnish evidence of an offence under Chapter IV; all found in public place or transit. (iii) Person about whom belief can be formed of having committed offence under Chapter IV or having narcotic drug/psychotropic substance in his possession (either found in public place or private place accessible to the public). 14. Considering the zones of operations of two sections as crystallized above, it can be seen that two sections considered together do not leave authorised officer powerless in any situation that can be contemplated but there can be seen zones regarding which the two sections overlap and such zones are as follows:- (i) Any building, conveyance or enclosed place may incorporate public building, public conveyance or public enclosed place. Although Section 43 specifically uses the word "in any public place or transit", in Section 42 there is no express indication excluding public building, conveyance or enclosed place. On the contrary public place contemplated under Section 43 is limited to hotels and shops, as far as buildings and enclosed places are concerned. (ii) All material used in the manufacture and any other article and any animal or conveyance liable for confiscation and document or other articles which were not subject matter of information but found on the spot. (iii) Any person on the spot whose presence was not reported in the information. When there are overlapping zones in two sections, those cannot provide proper guide to determine whether Investigating Officer was required to comply with Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Whether there was prior information or not is the criteria about which there is no clash between Sections 42 and 43. Therefore, it is felt, prior information or no information should be the sole criteria to determine whether compliance of Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 was imperative or not, isolated reading of Section 42(2) fully justifies such an interpretation. I am fortified in expressing such a view by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Kumar's case reported in 1995 CriLJ 2074, which lays down that from the stage he (Investigating Officer) had reason to believe that accused persons were in custody of narcotic drugs, he was under an obligation to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act.' 11. Coming to the case on hand, in the first information report, it is mentioned that a Station Diary entry vide S.D.E. No.513 dated 23.06.2011 was made on receipt of information regarding transportation of ganja by a private vehicle bearing Regd. No. KL-07-AA 2097. P.W.4, the informant while deposing in Court has stated in his examination in-chief that on 23.06.2011 he was working as S.I. of Police in Parlakhemundi police station and on that day afternoon, the then I.I.C. of Parlakhemundi T.K. Padhi (P.W.10) got reliable information that huge quantity of ganja was being illegally transported in a car bearing registration no.KL-07-AA-2097 through Parlakhemundi and directed him as well as S.I. of Police D.L. Behera (P.W.8), S.I. of Police P. Hembram and Havildar P. Mohapatra (P.W.11) to verify the information. He has not stated about making of any Station Diary entry by P.W.10 in the chief examination. However, in the cross-examination, P.W.4 has stated that they had specific information regarding transportation of ganja and P.W.10 had received the information and then he directed them to go to the place and that he had not reduced the information into writing. He further stated in the cross-examination that he had noted the grounds of belief in S.D. Entry No.513 dated 23.06.2011 but no copy of the said Station Diary Entry is available on record. He has further stated that he noted in S.D. Entry No.513 about the previous information regarding the transportation and the Investigating Officer had seized the said S.D. Entry. He further stated that P.W.10 received prior information at 3.30 p.m. and told him about the information five minutes later. P.W.10, the I.I.C. of Parlakhemundi police station, who is also the Investigating Officer has stated that prior to registration of the F.I.R., he received a reliable information with regard to transportation of the contraband ganja in a vehicle, which was coming from R. Udayagiri side and hence, he entered the fact in Station Diary Entry No.513 dated 23.06.2011 and asked P.W.4 and others to verify the matter vide command certificate No.364743 dated 23.06.2011. In the cross- examination, P.W.10 has stated that on 23.06.2011 at 3.30 p.m., he received the reliable information about transportation of ganja and he admits that the copy of the Station Diary entry is not available on record. The documents seized from the vehicle bearing registration no.KL-07-AA-2097 like R.C. Book (Ext.12), tax receipt (Ext.14) and the insurance certificate (Ext.15) clearly revealed that it is a private vehicle. In the F.I.R., it is also mentioned that the illegal transportation was being made by a private vehicle. In the charge framed against the appellants, it is also mentioned that they were transporting ganja in a private vehicle. There is absolutely no material that after the reliable information and ground of belief were taken down in writing in the form of the Station Diary entry, the copy of the same was ever sent to the immediate official superior much less within a period of seventy two hours as required under sub-section (2) of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Not a single witness has stated in that respect. Not a single witness has stated in that respect. Neither the copy of the Station Diary entry was proved during trial nor there is any proof regarding communication of the copy of information taken down in writing to the superior officer. As per law laid down by the Hon"ble Supreme Court and this Court, it is very clear that even if the seizure has been made in a public place during day time, since it is a private vehicle and earlier information regarding illegal transportation of ganja was received in the police station and it is stated that a Station Diary entry was also made in that connection, the total non-compliance of section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act is impermissible and the same would vitiate the trial. The learned trial Court has committed error in holding compliance of such provision. Thus, in the absence of any material to show compliance of the mandatory provision, the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellants is not sustainable in the eye of law. 12. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2014 of the learned Special Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi in G.R. Case No.215 of 2011/T.R. No.49 of 2011 is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are in judicial custody in connection with this case since 23.06.2011 and they were never released on bail either during trial or during pendency of these appeals. Thus, the appellants have undergone substantive sentence more than ten years and two months. The appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if their detention are not required in any other cases. Trial Court records with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for information.