JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years imposed, this appeal has been filed.

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

3. The matter lies within a short compass in view of the precise argument that has been made. This is with regard to the violation of Section 42 of the Act, the purport and effect of which has been laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana , (2009) 8 SCC 539. Paragraph 35 of the Judgment is extracted below:

"35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Section 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows:

(a) The officer on receiving the information [of the nature referred to in sub-section(1) of Section 42] from any person had to record it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, b