Based on the provided legal document, the key legal points are as follows:

1. The primary issue in the case was the non-compliance with sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act during the procedure of search and seizure. The court emphasized that total non-compliance of this subsection leads to the acquittal of the accused (!) .

2. The court clarified that while strict compliance with Sections 42(1) and 42(2) is generally required, delayed compliance with a satisfactory explanation for the delay can be permissible, especially in emergent situations where immediate action is necessary to prevent evidence or goods from being removed or destroyed (!) (!) .

3. The court highlighted that the recording of information and communication to the official superior should normally precede search and seizure activities. However, in urgent circumstances, these steps can be postponed, provided there is a reasonable explanation for the delay (!) (!) .

4. The case underscored that the failure to send a copy of the information to the superior or to record the information in writing at the appropriate time constitutes a violation of the statutory requirements, which can justify an order of acquittal if not properly explained (!) .

5. The court applied the interpretation that total non-compliance with the statutory procedural safeguards related to information recording and communication results in the invalidity of the search and seizure process, leading to the acquittal of the accused (!) .

6. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision, noting that the prosecution failed to establish compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 42, specifically regarding the submission of the report to the superior officer (!) (!) .

7. Overall, the judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance in search and seizure under the NDPS Act and recognizes that delayed compliance, with a satisfactory explanation, may be acceptable, but total non-compliance warrants acquittal.