Strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, especially S.42 and S.50, is essential for a valid investigation and prosecution.

1. For allegedly possessing 11 gms. of opium without licence, the appellant has been convicted under S.9(c) read with S.18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. It is stated at the bar that the appellant has already undergone sentence of about 8 years.

2. No one has appeared for the appellant. From the memo of the appeal, it is found that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant has been assailed mainly on the ground of violation of the provisions of S.42 and 50 of the Act. The learned counsel, appearing for the respondent State has, however, contended that as there was substantive compliance of the provisions of the Act, no interference is called for.

3. According to the prosecution, the Sub Inspector of police received a telephonic message on 6.10.1990 at about 8.30 a.m. that narcotic drugs were being sold at T.C. junction. He recorded the information in the general diary and proceeded to the scene of occurrence in a jeep. On reaching T.C. junction at about 8.45 a.m. he saw the accused carelessly walking from the bus shelter towards Kathu Parambu side. Allegedly seeing him in suspicious condition, the Sub Inspector along with his party approached him and after disclosing his identity searched the person of the accused in presence of witnesses. It was found that inside the fold of dhoti, which the appellant was wearing, opium had been concealed in a polythene bag. As he was found unauthorisedly possessing the opium, he was arrested and the opium seized was weighed to be 11 gms. Out of that 2 gms., each were separated and two samples were roped in plastic paper. On enquiry from the accused whether he would like to meet any higher official or gazetted officer, he allegedly replied in negative. S.42 of the Act provides:

"42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.- (a) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government or of the border security force as is empowered in this behalf by general special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of

the revenue, drug control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing, that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, in respect of which an offence punishable under Chapter IV has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may, between sunrise and sunset

(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;

(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;

(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under Chapter IV relating to such drug or substance; and

(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under Chapter IV relating to such drug or substance:

Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording oppo