JAYANTILAL MODI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 14th July, 2000, while S. A. Bobde, J. , was hearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 622 of 1994, 643 of 1994, 649 of 1994 and 82 of 1995, two conflicting decisions of this Court were cited before his Lordships; (Longuram Tariram Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra), 2000 (Supp.) Bom. C. R. 128 : 2000 All Maharashtra Reporter (Criminal) 542 wherein this Court had taken the view that since in pursuance of prior information the accused were found in possession of charas at the S. T. stand, Pune, which was a public place, as contemplated by section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to by us as the N. D. P. S. Act) it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of section 42 of the N. D. P. S. Act in terms that the information had to be recorded in writing and its copy sent forthwith to the official superior and (Bindarsingh v. State of Maharashtra), 1999 (1) Mh. L. J. 643 wherein it was laid down that even if the information pertained recovery of a narcotic substance under the N. D. P. S. Act was in relation to a public place, it was obligatory to comply with section 42 of the N. D. P. S. Act and to record the information in writing and to send its copy forthwith to the official superior. To resolve this apparent conflict S. A. Bobde, J. , felt that the following questions arose for determination for a larger Bench :---

(2.) IN the said factual matrix, the Honourable Chief Justice was pleased to constitute the present Bench for the decision of the said question.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. A. P. Mundargi for the appellants and Mr. S. G. Aney, for the respondents. In our view, to answer the questions referred to us, it would be necessary to extracts the provisions contained in sections 42 and 43 of the N. D. P. S. Act. Section 42 reads thus :---