John Michael Cunha, J.

F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under sections 20B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act"?) in Cr.No.69/2016.

2. The petitioners have sought for quashing the F.I.R. mainly on two grounds. First, the respondent ' "Police have not followed the mandatory provisions prescribed in the NDPS Act. Second, the details of the seized material have not been disclosed and hence, the initiation of the proceedings is bad in law.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. S.P.P.

4. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.8089/2016, Crl.P.No.8159/2016, Crl.P.No.8659/2016, Crl.P.No.8193/2016, Crl.P.No.8191/2016, Crl.P.No.8192/2016, Crl.P.No.9319/2016 and Crl.P.No.628/2017 and also the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajastan v. Jag Raj Singh alias Hansa (Crl.A. No.1233/2006) disposed of on 29.06.2016 (Reported in AIR 2016 SC 3041).

5. Learned Addl. S.P.P. in support of his arguments has referred to the following decisions namely:-

1. (2001) 6 SCC 181: (AIR 2001 SC 2637) -T. T. Anothony v. State of Kerala.

2. Division Bench judgment in Crl.A. No.367/2013 dated 16.12.2016

3. Emperor v. Kwaja Nazir Ahmed (AIR 1954 PC 18)

4. Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju & others v. The State of Kerala- (1973) 3 SCC 114

5. Hon'ble Apex Court ruling dated 25.11.2016 in Anjandas Gupta v. State of West Bengal

6. (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (AIR 2014 SC 187)-Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh

7. (2011) 11 SCC 559 : (2011 AIR SCW 6651)-State of Rajasthan v. Tarasingh.

8. (2011) 3 SCC 521 : (AIR 2011 SC 964)-Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab

9. Judgment of Rajastan High Court dated 23.1.2017

10. 2008 Criminal Law Journal 1131-Bombay High Court.

6. On consideration of the law laid down in the above decisions and the material collected by the Investigating Agency as evidenced in the charge-sheet, in my opinion, both the contentions urged by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings are liable to be rejected.

7. Insofar as the compliance of the safeguards provided in sections 42, 43 and 50 of the NDPS Act are concerned, the legal position is now well settled. Under section 41(1) of the NDPS Act, only the empowered Magistrate can issue warrant for the arrest or for the search in respect of the offences punishable under Chapter IV of the Act. Under section 41(2), the empowered officer can give the authorization to his sub-ordinate officer to carry out the arrest of a person or search as mentioned therein. As held in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, reported in (1994) 3 SCC 299 : (AIR 1994 SC 1872), if there is a contravention in the compliance of section 41(1) and 41(2) that would affect the prosecution case and vitiates conviction. Further under section 42(1), the empowered officer if he has a prior information given by any person that an offence punishable under the Act has been committed, that should necessarily be taken down in writing. But if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building etc., he may carry out the arrest or search without a warrant between sunrise and sunset and this provision does not mandate that he should record his reasons of belief. But under the proviso to section 42(1) if such officer has to carry out such search between sunset and sunrise, he must record the grounds of his belief. It is held in the above decision that to this extent, these provisions are mandatory and contravention of the same would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial.

8. Under section 42(2), the empowered officer who takes down any information in writing or records the grounds under proviso to section 42(1) should