The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict compliance with penal provisions, the requirement of specific information, and the importance of recording reasons before conducting a search under the NDPS Act.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred by Narcotics Control Bureau against judgment dated 17.05.1997 in Sessions Case No.12/1996 by which the respondents were acquitted. I have heard the learned Spl.P.P. for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent- Kulwant Singh and have examined the record. It reveals that complaint for offences punishable under sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act was filed by Sh. S.K. Vadhera, Intellignce Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau on 10.09.1987 against Mkemaekolam Okorie Ugroyozer, Godfrey Kelochechi Anyonwre, Ajit Singh Bhatia, Kulwant Singh and James W. Litchfield (hereinafter referred as respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 respectively). It was alleged that on 15.06.1987, search was conducted at room No.10, Panchsheel Inn, situated at C-4, Panchsheel Enclave where respondents No. 1 to 4 were found present. During search of the room, 12 small boxes were found which contained brown powder. The total weight of the brown powder was 2500 grams. It was further alleged that during the course of the proceedings, respondent No.2 sought permission to go to toilet. However, he escaped from the ventilator of the toilet and remained untraced. A white Maruti Car bearing No. DDC-7826 in which respondents No.3 and 4 had come to Panchsheel Inn was searched and 100 grams of narcotics drugs was recovered from a polythene bag concealed in between the front seat under the floor mat. Respondents No.1, 3 & 4 were examined under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and they admitted the recovery of the brown powder. They further confessed that 2500 grams of narcotics drugs recovered from room No.10 was delivered by respondents No.3 & 4. They also admitted to have delivered 10 grams of heroin to respondent No.5 on 15.06.1987. On the basis of voluntary statement of respondent No.3, room No.5 of Hotel Gautam located on D.B.Gupta Road was searched on 16.06.1987. Respondent No.5 was found present and he took out a small cardboard packet containing 10 grams white powder. In the statement under Section 67, he admitted the recovery and stated that the article was supplied by respondent No.3. The respondents were sent for trial after completion of the investigation.

2. It is relevant to note that respondent No.1 expired during the course of proceedings and the proceedings were dropped as abated vide order dated 11.01.1988. Respondent No.2 could not be found and was declared Proclaimed Offender. Respondent No.5 absconded during the trial and was declared Proclaimed Offender. Respondent No.3- Ajit Singh expired during the pendency of the present appeal and the proceedings against him were dropped. Only respondent No.4- Kulwant Singh has been left to face the proceedings.

3. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses in all. In his 313 statement, Kulwant Singh pleaded false implication. Two witnesses in defence were also examined. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted both respondent No.3 (Ajit Singh) and respondent No.4 (Kulwant Singh). Being aggrieved, the Narcotics Control Bureau has preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned Spl.P.P. urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in acquitting the respondents on technical grounds for non-compliance of section 42 (1), 42 (2), Section 50 & 57 of NDPS Act. Learned Spl.P.P. vehemently contended that Section 41 (1) was not attracted as secret information is required to be recorded in writing only if the information is that narcotics drugs are kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or an enclosed place. In the instant case, the information was only to the effect that respondents- Ajit Singh and Kulwant Singh would deliver narcotics drugs. The information was not that the narcotics drugs was kept and concealed in Panchsheel Inn. He further contended that Panchsheel Inn was a public place and any recovery