Mandatory compliance with prior-information recording under narcotics law held essential; total non-compliance vitiated the recovery and conviction.

Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 requires the officer to record prior information in writing and forward it to the immediate superior, unless justified delay is shown by urgent circumstances. On the facts, the information was received at the police station with enough time to comply, but there was no reliable proof of written recording, the diary entry was not produced, and no proof showed forwarding to a superior officer even after the search. The court treated this as total non-compliance, not substantial or delayed compliance, and held that the recovery and conviction could not stand. The conviction and sentence were set aside and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained when the information received by the officer was not reduced into writing and not forwarded to the superior officer as required by Section 42.

Analysis: The recovery and conviction rested on information received by the officer before proceeding to search. The governing law on Section 42 requires ordinary compliance by recording the information in writing and sending it to the immediate superior, while permitting delayed compliance only in emergent situations where immediate action is necessary. On the evidence, the information was received at the police station, there was sufficient time to record it, no reliable proof showed that it was reduced into writing, the alleged diary entry was not produced, and there was no proof that the information was sent to the superior officer even after the search. The case was therefore held to be one of total non-compliance, not a case of justified delay or substantial compliance.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: Total non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vitiates the recovery and cannot support a conviction, unless justified delayed compliance is established on the facts.

---