1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.5.2000 passed by the Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act Cases (Sessions Judge), Bharatpur, whereby he has convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sections 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default thereof, to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.

2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that P.W.8 Rameshwar Prasad received an information on 16.9.1995 at 12.15. P.M. from informer that one person is in search of selling smack in Chapper Mohala. Having received the information, he recorded the same as this 'Rojnamcha' and informed the officers superior on telephone and also sent the information in writing. Thereafter, Shri Rameshwar Prasad, SHO Kumher alongwith the witnesses and police party rushed to the disclosed place. The SHO stopped a person and asked his name and address, who disclosed his identity as Kalua s/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Vaishya r/o Januthar, Deeg (Bharatpur). The SHO informed the person about suspicion of his being in possession of smack and therefore, he informed the person his right to have his search conducted either in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer vide Ex.P.13. Thereupon, that person gave his consent in writing on Ex.P.13 itself for his search by the SHO himself. On search, the SHO found a small packet (pudiya) in the left pocket of his shirt. On opening the packet, it was found to have contained smack. The accused Kalua was not having any licence. On getting the smack weighed, it was found to be 430 mgs. vide Ex.P.5. The SHO prepared the seizure memo Ex.P.3, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.P.2.

3. On completion of aforesaid formalities, a case was registered vide FIR No. 315/95 for offence under Section 8/21 of the Act. During investigation, the police recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code and sent the smack to the FSL for its chemical examination. The receipt of FSL is Ex.P.8. The FSL report Ex.P.9 shows that the packet marked 'A' gave positive tests for the presence of Diacetyle morphine (heroin). After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused in the Court of Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Bharatpur.

4. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments of counsel for the parties and on the basis of material on record, framed charge against the accused under Section 8/21 of the Act. The charge was read over to the accused, to which he denied and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to enable him to personally explain the circumstances existing against him. The accused also examined D.W. 1 Murari Lal in his defence.

6. The trial Judge found the prosecution case established against the appellant and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment and the record of the case.

8. In assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the accused appellant has confined his arguments mainly to the extent of non-compliance of the requirement of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. He has vehemently submitted that there was complete non-compliance of the requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act, inasmuch as the information Ex.P.11 recorded in 'Rojnamcha' by P.W.8 Rameshwar Prasad was not sent to his immediate official superior. He further submitted that the information sent to the Supdt. of Police Vide Ex. P.18 is not at all a copy of the informat