A. K. Roopanwal, J. - (1.) All the above appeals have been brought against the judgment and order dated 1. 2. 07 passed by the Additional District Judge/f. T. C. No. 1, Chitrakoot whereby the appellants Rajendra Kumar @ Rajjan Mishra, Nawal Kishore Gupta and Mewa Lal were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 22 (c), NDPS Act in case crime nos. 109/04, 110/04 and 111/04 respectively (S. S. T. Nos. 4/05, 5/05 and 6/05 respectively) and all were sentenced to undergo 10 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in non payment of fine further imprisonment for 2 years. Appellant Govind Shivhare was convicted under Section 27 (a), NDPS Act in case crime no. 112/04 (S. S. T. No. 7/05) and sentenced to 10 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of the payment of fine further imprisonment for 2 years. In order to facilitate the disposal of these appeals a brief resume of the facts are necessary to be made. On 27. 10. 04 Sub-Inspector Sharda Prasad Singh was on patrol duty in the town of Karvi along with a squad of PAC. At about 2. 00 p. m. HCP Ram Gopal, Constable Ramiuddin, Constable Anuj Pratap Singh of Special Operating Group came to him and informed that appellant Govind Shivhare is running wholesale business of smack in the town of Baberu. S. I. Sharda Prasad Singh immediately conveyed this information to the Additional S. P. who ordered him to go to Baberu and made inquiry. The S. I. requisitioned a Marshal Jeep UP 90 9417. He along with the driver of the Jeep namely Sohan Lal and the aforesaid officials of the S. O. G. and the PAC proceeded for Baberu. Squad of the PAC was ordered to reach Kotwali Karvi. The team reached at the shop of appellant Govind Shivhare situated in Bazar Manorath Chowk. Govind Shivhare was interrogated who on inquiry confessed that he does the business of smack but at that time he did not have any contraband at his shop or the house. He, then, disclosed that he had supplied the contraband material at some place in Rajapur town and may accompany the police party for the arrest of the concerned persons. S. I. Sharda Prasad Singh, then, informed the C. O. Rajapur on telephone and requested him to reach Rajapur. He along with the appellant Govind Shivhare and the police personnel came to Rajapur where C. O. Rajapur J. P. Chandel was already present. On the instructions of the C. O. Rajapur H. C. P. Santosh Kumar Tripathi and constable Nandi Lal were also taken. All started to the place told by Govind Shivhare by Govt. Jeep No. UP 96-441. They came to the house of appellant Rajendra Mishra @ Rajjan Mishra situated in Mohalla Madhavganj in Rajapur town. Public witnesses were tried to be taken, but none became ready. The police party took mutual search but nothing incriminating was found. The house of Rajendra Mishra @ Rajjan Mishra was found open. All entered into the house where three persons were found sitting. Appellant Govind Shivhare said that those were the persons to whom the smack was given by him for sale. All were arrested at about 7. 45 p. m. They disclosed their names as Rajendra Mishra @ Rajjan Mishra who was having a plastic bag from which two packets of smack, each having 1 kg. were recovered. The second man told his name as Nawal Kishore Gupta and from his hand a polythine packet containing about 1/2 kg. smack was recovered. The third man told his name as Mewa Lal and from his bag also 1/2 kg. smack was recovered. All told that they sell the contraband purchased from Govind Shivhare. Samples were drawn from the recovered material and the remaining material was sealed. Recovery memo was prepared. The accused were brought to the police station Rajapur where S. I. Sharda Prasad Singh registered criminal cases under the NDPS Act against the appellants. Investigation of the case was taken up by the SHO Jai Narain Verma who recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. From Mr. Verma the investigation came to S. I. Nayan Singh who sent the case property for chemical analysis. After the transfer of S. I. Nayan Singh the investigation came to S. I. D. K. Singh who after concluding the investigation submitted the charge sheets against the accused persons. Accused-appellant Rajendra Kumar @ Rajjan Mishra, Nawal Kishore Gupta and Mewa Lal were separately charged under Section 22 (c), NDPS Act and appellant Govind Shivhare was charged under Section 27 (a), NDPS Act. All denied from the charges and claimed to be tried. All the Sessions Trials were consolidated and Special Sessions Trial No. 4/05 was made a leading case. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW-1 Sharda Prasad Singh, PW-2 Jagpal Singh, PW- 3 Constable Nandi Lal, PW-4 Santosh Kumar Tripathi, PW-5 S. I. D. K. Singh, PW-6 S. I. Nayan Singh, PW-7 Jai Narain Verma. The prosecution also proved Fard Recovery, first information report of the case, G. D. , site plan and the reports of the chemical examination. Charge sheets were also proved. Accused-appellants were examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. in which they denied from the prosecution case and stated that the recovery memo is forged, however, they did not lead any evidence in their defence. The trial court examined the evidence on the record and on its basis found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Heard Mr. Satish Trivedi, learned senior counsel and Mr. V. C. Mishra, learned senior counsel for all the appellants, learned AGA and perused the record. All the learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued only one point in support of these appeals. They said that the police did not comply with the provisions of Section 42, NDPS Act, hence, the trial has vitiated and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. Section 42, NDPS Act enables certain officers duly empowered in this behalf by the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, to enter into and search in a building, conveyance or enclosed place for the offence mentioned therein without any warrant or authorisation. Under sub-section 1 of Section 42, NDPS Act the method to be adopted and procedure to be followed have been laid down. If the concerned Officer has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and has taken down in writing that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in respect of which an offence punishable under Chapter IV of the Act has been committed or any other articles which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence is kept or concealed in any building or conveyance and enclosed place, he may between sunrise and sunset do the act enumerated in clause (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub section 1 of Section 42, NDPS Act. From the arrangement made in the aforesaid Section it is clear that where any such officer as envisaged in Section 42 (1), NDPS Act has reason to believe from information given by any person that a psychotropic substance is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, he is firstly required to record it in writing and secondly to transmit a copy of the same within 72 hours to the immediate official superior under Section 42 (2), NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the compliance of the provisions of Section 42, NDPS Act was not made as neither the information received by S. I. Sharda Prasad Singh was reduced into writing nor it was transmitted by him to his immediate official superior. To the above argument, it was argued by the AGA that in the present case there was no necessity at all to observe the formalities proscribed under Section 42, NDPS Act. It was because of two reasons. Firstly, that the information received by S. I. S. P. Singh was a general information and secondly, at the time of the alleged information S. I. S. P. Singh was not in a position to know that the contraband was kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place. It appears from the record that S. P. Singh had received the information that appellant Govind Shivhare was doing the wholesale business of smack. This information was a definite and clear information and thus, the argument of the AGA cannot be accepted that the information received by S. I. S. P. Singh was only a general information. It also appears from the record that when information was received to the effect that Govind Shivhare was dealing in wholesale business, then, definitely the police party would have needed to make a search at his establishment or other establishments. Thus, this argument of learned AGA can also not be accepted that there was no information that the contraband had been concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place. From the statements of the so called witnesses of arrest and recovery it appears that S. I. S. P. Singh knew it well that the smack would be found in the business premises of appellant Govind Shivhare and therefore, the information received by him should have been reduced in writing and should have been communicated to the immediate superior officer within 72 hours of the information. As it was not done, hence, the compliance of Section 42, NDPS Act was not made. There is also one more ground on which it can be said that this compliance was needed and was not done. It is clear from the statements of PW-1 Sharda Prasad Singh PW-2 Jagpal Singh and PW-4 Santosh Kumar Tripathi that after the arrest of Govind Shivhare police was informed that the contraband may be found in the house of accused Rajendra Mishra @ Rajjan Mishra and then the police went to raid his house. When the police had come to know through Govind Shivhare that the contraband had been concealed in the house of Rajendra Mishra @ Rajjan Mishra, then, it was mandatory for the police party to have reduced into writing that information which was received from Govind Shivhare and to send it to the immediate official superior within 72 hours of receiving the information. As it was not done, hence, the compliance of the provisions of Section 42, NDPS Act was not made. In view of the above, I do agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that the compliance of the provisions of Section 42, NDPS has not been made which was necessary to be made. Hence, the complete trial has vitiated. In the result, all the appeals succeed and the impugned judgment and order dated 1. 2. 07 is set aside. Accused-appellants Rajendra Kumar @ Rajjan Mishra, Nawal Kishore Gupta and Mewa Lal are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 22 (c), NDPS Act and Accused-appellant Govind Shivhare is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 27 (a), NDPS Act. Let the appellants Rajendra Kumar @ Rajjan Mishra, Nawal Kishore Gupta, Mewa Lal and Govind Shivhare be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. .;