Mandatory Section 42 compliance under the NDPS Act; failure to record and communicate secret information undermined the conviction.

Section 42 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and non-compliance can invalidate a narcotics conviction where secret information is not recorded and communicated before the raid. Mere registration of the FIR and dispatch of special reports does not constitute compliance, and delayed compliance is relevant only in emergent situations, not where there is total non-compliance. The court also treated the prosecution evidence as doubtful because the alleged independent witnesses did not support the raid narrative. On those grounds, the conviction and sentence under the NDPS Act were not sustained and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vitiated the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 15(b) of that Act.

Analysis: The record showed that the investigating officer received secret information, caused a ruqa to be sent, and proceeded to raid the house of the accused. However, there was no separate recording of the secret information before the raid, nor proof of communication of that information in the manner required by Section 42. The Court applied the settled rule that the statutory mandate under Section 42 is mandatory, and that mere registration of the FIR and dispatch of special reports does not amount to compliance. It further held that although delayed compliance may be acceptable in emergent situations, total non-compliance is impermissible. The Court also found the prosecution version doubtful on the presence and utility of the alleged independent witnesses.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained because Section 42 was not complied with, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---