Section 42 NDPS compliance in emergent searches depends on recorded reasons and timely superior communication.

Section 42 of the NDPS Act generally requires an empowered officer to reduce prior information into writing and forward it to a superior officer before search or seizure, but in special and emergent situations delayed compliance may be accepted if the grounds are properly recorded and communicated within seventy-two hours. The proviso applies where the officer believes that obtaining a warrant would allow concealment or destruction of evidence. On the stated facts, the contraband was concealed in a well and the situation was emergent, but there was no material showing that the grounds of belief were recorded or that the superior officer was informed within time, amounting to total non-compliance with Section 42.

---

---

Issues: Whether the search, seizure and arrest in an emergent situation complied with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and whether non-compliance vitiated the conviction.

Analysis: The governing principle on Section 42 is that information received by an empowered officer must normally be reduced into writing and forwarded to the immediate superior before action is taken, but in special and emergent situations delayed compliance may be accepted if satisfactorily explained. Where the officer has reason to believe that obtaining a warrant or authorisation would afford opportunity for concealment or destruction of evidence, the proviso permits search after recording the grounds of belief, followed by communication to the superior officer within seventy-two hours. On the facts, the contraband had been concealed in a well, the situation was emergent, and the evidence indicated imminent destruction of the substance. However, there was no material to show that the officer recorded the grounds of belief or communicated them to the superior officer within the prescribed time.

Conclusion: There was total non-compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the acquittal was upheld.

---