Mandatory NDPS search safeguards not followed, so the acquittal was upheld and the prosecution failed.

Non-compliance with the mandatory NDPS Act safeguards governing recording of prior information and search rendered the prosecution case unsustainable. The customs officer relied on prior information and effected interception and seizure, but the record showed no contemporaneous recording of that information and no subsequent compliance within a reasonable time. Since breach of these statutory safeguards vitiates the proceedings, there was no basis to interfere with the acquittal. The respondent's acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal could be interfered with when the prosecution had not complied with the mandatory requirements governing recording of information and search under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested on prior information received by the customs officer, leading to interception and seizure of hashish from the checked-in baggage of the respondent. The decisive question was whether the officer had recorded the information and acted in accordance with the mandatory procedure under the NDPS Act. The record showed that no such contemporaneous recording was made, and even the claim of subsequent compliance within a reasonable time was absent. In view of the settled legal position that compliance with the statutory safeguards is mandatory and that breach of those safeguards vitiates the proceedings, the Court found no basis to disturb the acquittal on merits.

Conclusion: The appeal was not allowed, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: Failure to comply with the mandatory statutory safeguards governing search and interception under the NDPS Act was fatal to the prosecution, so the respondent's acquittal stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: When the statute prescribes mandatory pre-search and information-recording safeguards, failure to comply with them vitiates the prosecution and is sufficient to sustain acquittal.

---