Section 42 compliance at airport customs counters supports acquittal where the search officer failed to record information in writing.

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only if the trial court's view is unreasonable, perverse, or against the weight of evidence. The airport customs counter where the respondent was intercepted was treated as a restricted area, not a place open to the public, so Section 42 of the NDPS Act applied. The search officer was therefore required to record the information in writing and forward it to a superior officer. As no such compliance was shown, the trial court's acquittal was supported by the evidence and was not shown to be perverse.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court was vitiated by perversity, particularly on the question whether the customs counter area at the airport was a public place and whether the search officer was required to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only when the view taken by the trial court is unreasonable, perverse, or against the weight of evidence. The airport customs counter where the respondent was intercepted was found to be a restricted area not to the general public. On that view, Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied, and the search officer was bound to record the information in writing and send it to the superior officer. The record showed no such compliance. The conclusion of the trial court was supported by the evidence and by the earlier view that such airport customs areas are not public places for the purpose of Section 43 of the Act.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not shown to be perverse, and the trial court was correct in holding that non-compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 justified acquittal.

---