 subsection 1 is addressed and the officer who authorized the arrest or search who is so authorized under subsection 2 shall have all the powers of an officer acting under section 42. So an officer who is either armed with the warrant issued under 41 or an authorization issued under 42, he becomes a competent person or an authorized officer to search or arrest. So that is the section 41. Section 42 deals with the power of search seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization. See that first is that is obtaining the warrant then power of entry search and arrest without warrant or authorization. Any such officer so that means who has been authorized there or who has this one what you call him has obtained the authorization that person if he has reason to believe at the middle of the section if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person taken down in writing. So these are the safeguards because if he is going on a routine job and he suspects someone if to know whether what he is doing is legal or not otherwise he can implicate any other person. Therefore the law says that if it is without warrant or authorization then if it is in relation to the he must record that reason that personal knowledge or information given by any person had taken down in writing that any narcotic drug or psychedelic substance or control in documents or other things which are available. So then he himself can conduct the raid between sunrise and sunset and in the process he can enter and search he can break open he can seize the substance and he can detain and search. See all these powers are given but further if provided further if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment so between sunset and sunrise even then he can do it provided he records the grounds of his belief. So first is the power of search without warrant or authorization. That is a procedure of obtaining the warrant and the procedure of obtaining authorization. When there is an authorization such person can conduct the search, search conduct the search during sun between sunrise and sunset. So this is from the enclosed places and subsection 2 says when an officer takes down any information in writing and the subsection 1 or records grounds for his belief under the proviso he shall within 72 hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superiors. These are not empty formalities see this is to these are these formalities of course we will discuss what is the legal effect of it whether they are directory or whether they are mandatory but in order to validate the search validate the arrest validate the seizure this is a he has to comply with these preconditions these safeguards then only the proceedings conducted by him becomes valid. Section 43 deals with the search in the public place see the difference what you can see is that when the search is from the enclosed place from the conveyance if he has got an information the procedure is that he must either obtain the warrant or obtain the authorization then only conduct the search and even while conducting the search he must record the reasons and communicate it within 72 hours to his official superiors. If it is from the open place none of these procedures need to be nor these preconditions required to be followed. So here see power of searcher the only thing is the requirement is that the search should be or the seizure should be from the public place any officer of any of the department mentioned in section 42 so 42 means only the gazetted officer or any of the officers who has been authorized by the gazetted officer may see is in any public place or in transit any narcotic drug or psychotic substance or control in respect of it he has reason to believe an offense punishable has been committed committed or any article may which may furnish evidence has been considered then he can see is it it does not prescribe any condition at all any condition at all then he can detail search any person whom he has reason to believe as committed an offense because the provisions have got any purpose to serve an officer one who is let us say he goes to the routine routine check out what you call Bandobas or any other routine duty then he finds a person moving suspiciously then what is if he had previous information about to the commission of that offense by that self person then the law says he cannot get into section 43 he must follow the procedures under 41 on 42 42 but without having any information if he finds a person and he arrest him as a routine that arrest that seizure will be under the provisions of CRPC only but while conducting the search if he comes to know that he is in possession of any contraband which is an offense under the NDPS act from that moment he should stop you should stop and you should hand over the investigation or you should follow the procedures contemplated under that see the what you call the underlying principle is whether he has got an information of an offense so that is the only safeguard if he had information of an offense otherwise I think that the investigating officer can act arbitrarily without thing he can implicate any person and can say that he was involved in that just to know that what action he has taken has got to validity for the interest of to safeguard the to to to ensure the accused that he has not been falsely implicated that some procedures have been laid down so it is only on complying with these procedures he has to proceed otherwise his action becomes tainted suspicious so therefore the loss is when he has got an information go through under section 41 or 42 and then between day and day night you effectively search even if there is no warrant you record your reasons and during sunset and during the night also you conduct the search provider there is something in writing recorded and the copy of it is sent to the superiors but if it is from the public place then no such requirements or preconditions have been prescribed under the act because of the nature of the offense section 15 section 15 am I am I clear if anyone wants to this one interact they can always ask if I am not very clear because at the end of the session we will go ahead with yes see section 50 deals with the personal search so when either under warrant or let us say without warrant or under authorization or from a public place if a person the person of the accused has to be searched you see there's a difference between searching the conveyance searching the place and searching the person section 50 is applicable only when the person is to be searched then section 15 provides the safeguard or the precautions that is the person one who conducts the search must give an option to the accused or to the suspect that whether he wants to be searched by the gazetted officer or by the magistrate and if he expresses if he says that he wants to be searched by the gazetted officer he should be taken before the gazetted officer or the magistrate without giving this option if he conducts the search the search becomes illegal or invalid I think that is only section 50 so these are the what you call the precautions or the safeguards that these are only the four procedures a special procedure that has been engrafted under the act to protect the interest of the accused because this is the if at all the accused can set up any defense I think under this act I have regard to the stringent punishment and the especially the what you call presumptions I think this is the section 41 42 and 43 and section 50 are the only defense that we can say it could be available to the accused therefore this is the this provision any person practicing on the or representing the interest of the accused must know that any search any arrest or any seizure would be valid only if it is from the closed place 41 and 40 if it is from public place he must satisfy that it is a public place now for example recently there was a there was a case I think what is it buta Singh buta Singh it was in a live law it was reported where a person was napped or apprehended he was sitting in his jeep in his jeep and in a public place the jeep was a private jeep it was a private jeep and he was found in a possession of the possession of the articles the question was whether the place where this contraband was found is it a private place or public place so all the trial court and the high court held it is a public place because it was found in the on the public road which has got an access because you may be knowing that is whether it is a private place and a public place I think the law takes a different shade or a different color in a different situation for example if a person is wearing a mask is not wearing a mask in his private car we say that he is going in a public place even an exercise department if he is drinking in a public place even if it is in a private car we say it is a public place so when so that being the interpretation all the court said that no it was a he was in a public place so therefore the investigating agency did not comply with any of the preconditions prescribed in section 41 and 42 but the honorable supreme court disagreed in that buta since case I think 20 21 decision and it said that section 43 explanation for the purpose of this section the expression public place includes public conveyance hotel shop or other place intended for use or accessible to the public it said a private vehicle private jeep though it is in the public place it is not a public place therefore the non-compliance of the requirements under section 42 and 41 would entitle him for equity see that is how the law because that is the effect of this these provisions these are not what that's why I told you the general provisions are there under the CRPC but these special provisions are enacted keeping in mind the special nature of the offenses because the police every time the investigating officer cannot we cannot be expected to run after and get a warrant so he has been authorized to act even to immediately to get into this job even by authorization from his department but to safeguard the interest of the excuse says to validate such an action he must strictly comply and therefore all these provisions compliance of section 41 42 43 and 50 are held to be mandated so if you want to go through what is the legal effect of these or the implications of these provisions of course you can find any number of decisions but I would just give one decision which is often a recent decision Tophan Singh versus the state of Tamil Nadu Tophan Singh versus the state of Tamil Nadu AR 2020 Supreme Court 5592 of course the question involved in this case is whether an officer empowered under section 42 and 53 are police officers and whether the statement made by the accused under section 67 of the act whether it is a confessional statement which is hit by section 25 of the evidence act so that was the point which was under consideration so to determine or to answer this question the court has gone through in detail or has summarized the entire law relating to the sections 41 42 and 43 it has an analyzed the what you call the development of the law because right from the constitution bench decision till late how the law was laid down and how it was diluted to say and what is this the present position of law I think that has been dealt very elaborately and in this decision that for I said only one decision it analyzes all the previous decisions so therefore this one decision I would say is a compendium by which you can get to know the present position of law with regard to the legal effect of the the four provisions what we are discussing today whether they are directory or mandatory see here this the honorable supreme court as a refer to the constitution bench decision in Baldev Singh Baldev Singh 1999 6 SCC 172 that decision had taken into consideration the conclusions eroded by two judge bench of in a state of Punjab versus Baldev Singh that is 1994 Supreme Court 1872 1872 the questions considered above arise frequently before us because instead of dealing from point to point I'll just refer to this I think that gives a fair idea of what the what the issues that are likely to be a reason in considering the applicability of these four provisions are dealt the questions considered above arise frequently before the trial course therefore we find it necessary to set out our conclusions which are as follows one if a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the provisions of NDPS act makes a search or arrest a person in the normal course of investigation into an offense or suspected offense as provided under the provisions of CRPC and when such search is completed at that stage section 50 of the NDPS act would not be attracted and the question of complying with the requirements would not arise if during such search or arrest there is a chance recovery of any narcotic or psychotic substance then the police officer who is not empowered should inform the empowered officer who should thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS act this is what I told you now for example a forest officer police officer who is not empowered I said to validate the search or seizure it could be done either when there is an information because that is a precondition when there is an information of the commission of the offense you can proceed only under warrant or authorization from the gazetted officer now here is a case where a police officer who is not an empowered officer at all then in the routine checkup he comes across or stumbles upon a case and during the search or interrogation he comes to know that the person is in possession of the contraband which is an offense under this act then what should he do then the search or the arrest or whatever procedure so far he has conducted will be treated as the procedure under CRPC either under section 41 or under 100 or 165 but the moment NDPS this one is that he has to stop and from that stage the authorized officer has to continue authorized officer if he has to continue he has to follow the same procedure he has to send the same procedure so next under section 41 1 subsection 1 only the empowered magistrate can issue warrant for the arrest see the legal implications so we did not run to any what is the position of law this one decision has summarized the position of law he says under section 41 1 only an empowered magistrate can issue warrant for the arrest or for the search in respect of the offenses punishable under chapter 4 of the chapter 4 of the actor when such warrant for arrest or search is issued by a magistrate who is not empowered then such search or arrest if carried out would be illegal so here itself will get what is the legal effect so if the person who issued the warrant is not empowered by special order or is not an authorized officer who has been authorized in terms of section 42 then the search becomes illegal next under subsection 41 2 only the empowered officer can give the authorization if there is a contravention that would affect the prosecution case and initiate the conviction see the results of it so generally we said the procedural violation does not affect the substantive case unless prejudice has been shown but here is the provisions which I showed you told you are enacted for the interest of the accused to give him an opportunity or a forum for fair trial fair investigation therefore any violation is treated as the compliance of it is treated as mandatory and violations will render the entire trial initiated then under section 42 1 the empowered officer if he has prior information he should necessarily take it down in writing it is nothing but a reproduction of the conditions or the preconditions what are there in 41 and 42 so he said he must necessarily take down in writing he may carry out the arrest or search without a warrant between sunrise and sunset so if he takes down without a warrant also he can of the magistrate he can do that if there is an authorization and the information has been taken down that means sufficient compliance to this extent the provisions are mandatory and contravention of the same would affect the prosecution case and initiate the trial so every stage by stage they have set the effect 41 2 if it is no empowered it wishes 41 2 it wishes then under section 42 2 such empowered officer who takes down any information in writing or records the grounds under 41 2 should forthwith the send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior that is another condition if there is total non application of this provision the same affects the prosecution case see here I want to tell you because we read this entire judgment gradually the law was diluted because what was earlier it was said that if there is a there is all these provisions are mandatory non compliance of any of these conditions any of these conditions would render the entire exercise futile it will vissure the trial entitling the accused for acquittal but gradually the sum of the courts even the honorable supreme court said if there is a substantial compliance or if there is a delayed compliance let us say the section says within 72 hours we have to send the information to the superiors let us say it is said beyond 72 hours then even though there is delayed compliance you take it as a substantial compliance or for example other conditions which are required one or two conditions are satisfied he has taken down but has not sent still we say that there is a substantial compliance so therefore it says that that was the position of law but now with this decision even everything all gray areas are no gray areas are long left the matter is set down now it says that once the conditions are prescribed to safeguard the interest of the accused they are to be treated as a mandatory if it is mandatory they have to be complied in full in total or no not at all you can't comply it in part and say that there is substantial compliance there is no scope that is the present position of law that has been laid down in this decision so if a police officer even if section 4a police officer even if he happens to be an empowered officer by defecting an arrest or search during normal investigation into an offense purely under the provisions of CRPC fails to strictly comply with the provisions of 165 including the requirement to record reasons such failure would only amount to an irregularity that's why I said first I told you you must take note of the provisions contained under section under the CRPC CRPC is made applicable to the search and seizure while effecting now for example section 41 and 42 prescribe only the mode of issuing the warrant or the who is the competent authorities it does not say how the search has to be made or how the arrest has to be made section 100 says well under warrant when you make the search you have to get two respectable persons then he says you have to prepare the search memo you have to give the copy to the other if these requirements are also required to be compliant so that means section 100 and 160 shows to be compliant if you do not comply the requirements laid down under 116 then 100 and 165 then that can be maybe treated as irregularity but not the other provisions so that is the distinction so if there is in compliance of the provisions of the section 100 and 103 if there is any violation you can treat it as an irregularity but not the compliance of the conditions or the preconditions laid down in 41 42 43 and 50 so that is the difference and therefore after this judgment after this judgment so the judgment was rendered by the bench in 1999 in 2000 amendment was brought amendment was brought to section 50 and if you see section 50 section 50 they said section sub clause 5 was introduced inserted with effect from 2001 when an officer duly authorized under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest gazetted officer see how the law was tried to be the what was initially intended to be a mandatory provision after this judgment because what it said is that compliance of or failure to comply of 100 would only be irregularity rest of things are mandatory then it said so when it is not possible to be searched by the nearest gazetted officer or magistrate without the possibility of person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drugs or consorted substance he may instead of taking such person to the nearest gazetted officer may proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of CRPC so he said even if it is not possible you record the reasons and you proceed under section 100 but that has been interpreted now in this decision he says when the entire intention of framing or enacting section 42 41 42 43 and 50 is to safeguard the interest these are to be treated as in the nature of mandatory nature so therefore it said that section 100 what the section 5 you can implement it or you can enforce it use it only in exceptional circumstances otherwise the compliance of these conditions are a must the prosecution must prove for example that he has given in the option how to say that he has the given in the option to be searched by the gazetted officer or by the magistrate generally the investigating officer takes down in writing in writing under this provisions also if you see that whatever writing or the signatures that have been taken are deemed to be correct and a presumption is there under section 66 so he exercise that option that will be the proof his signature should be there so otherwise we have to take it he has not followed the requirement mandatory requirements of section 50 and he cannot take shelter stating that because it was not possible therefore I have followed or conducted the search under section 100 see that is the difference hope I you understand the what you call emphasis and the emphasis is that so you cannot as a routine course follow under section where section 42 prescribed or 43 or 50 prescribed certain preconditions those preconditions are mandatory yes then the effect of such failure has to be borne in mind on prior information the empowered officer or authorized officer while acting under section 41 2 or 42 should comply with the provisions of section 50 before the searcher search of the person is made and such person should be informed so it says again the repeating the same thing then see that another issue also arose because I said the law laid down by the constitution bench it was tried to be interpreted in a different way see in a there was an earlier decision if the property is seized or recovered through an illegal search whether such property or such object material object can it be relied on which is recovered through illegal search see under general criminal jurisprudence even if the search is illegal the property recovered could be relied on and that same beam was applied to the NDPS Act also it said that even if it is what you call even if the search is illegal you can consider or accept the accept the properties that are seized but in this judgment it has been said even that is not possible that is not what has been laid down by the constitution bench you can't incorporate a condition which is not there in section 50 50 so it has been it has been said that that even the property recovered is has to be treated as illegal and cannot be relied on at all so these are in poor and mouse case I think in poor and mouse case 1974 whatever it was said that property recovered through illegal search could be relied on but that position also it is said now it cannot be applied to NDPS cases in NDPS cases these provisions are mandatory if there is no compliance there is a total non-compliance there cannot be substantial compliance at all then the benefit should go to the accused so these are the these are the provisions and ultimately if you see in a section in power 55 in power 50 thus this extremely important safeguard continues or as has been as has been originally enacted subject only to the exception in subsection 5 and 6 which can only be used in urgent and emergent situations so the ultimate conclusion of the honorable supreme court by analyzing all the earlier provisions or the law is that that recourse to section 100 could be taken only in exceptional circumstances otherwise compliance of each and every condition is mandatory this court has clearly held that non-compliance of this provision would lead to the conviction of the accused being initiated and that substantial compliance with these provisions would not save the prosecution case so the position of law is very clear so the whatever preconditions that are laid down in section 42 are mandatory nature there must be total compliance here delayed compliance or substantial compliance is of no use at all no use so that is the position of law we have understood and there are these are the provisions and the legal effect and on the same point I think you can also note one decision of the constitution bench in Mukesh Singh Mukesh Singh versus state of all versus state NCB 2020-10 SCC 120 here of course the issue was whether the investigating officer and the complainant can be one and the same because you may be knowing the special procedure here see the name of the informant is not to be disclosed as per section 68 then who is the complainant that is when then information has been so that's why I said this safeguards are there safeguards in 40 to 40 when information has been received he has to record it recorded in the concert register and then take further action either authorized or he himself conducted the search and that after conducting the search or after affecting the arrest that person and that property either it should be produced before the magistrate if the magistrate is issued the warrant or it should be produced before the nearest station house officer or the authorized officer so that is the procedure and the report submitted by him at that time becomes the complaint so the complainant or the informant is not the complainant FIR is not registered therefore there is a significance of this this one so thereafter the investigation actually real investigation starts so here arrest seizure takes place before registration of the case therefore the only material reliable material is the information recorded by the officer say that is the rationale there is a reason behind these rules so therefore the question arose whether there is whether the complainant and the investigating officer can be one and the same the Mohanlal decision case was there it said if he is one and the same the entire thing is initiated prejudices cost prejudices cost but Mohanlal's case is is reversed is reversed in this decision and it said when it comes to NDPS act the section itself section 53 itself authorizes because that is the scheme of the act because of the nature of the offenses you can't first disclose the name of the in the FIR then there is nothing will be there to search nothing will be left if you follow the routine procedure under CRPC therefore the name of the informant is kept secret then all other procedures commence then the investigation the authorized officer under section 53 and section 53 says that the very same person one who conducted all this procedure the gazetted officer himself could be an authorized officer by the gazetted officer under section 42 he himself could be the investigating officer so there is nothing wrong and in this decision even the supreme court that the five judge bench the constitutional bench they have said that even the law even in the criminal law also you can't stretch it this is the principle saying that the complainant and the investigating officer cannot be the same it has said that even under criminal law also there is no invariable rule in NDPS act because of section 53 itself the act itself authorizes the complainant and the investigation officer to be one and the same but even under general law also says that the general principle is that he can be unless the EQ shows prejudice but here the question of prejudice does not arise at all because section 53 authorizes it so these are the provisions you should know it so other decisions are there but all these decisions are referred in the toughensings case therefore I have given you only one decision where the entire gamut of law has been discussed discussed position of law means very clear authoritatively law is laid down therefore there is no ambiguity at all in the application of the legal effect of or the compliance of section 41 40 to 43 see that section 57 is there section 57 one section which I know to touch report of arrest and seizure whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this act he shall within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure make a full report to all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior this is not mandatory this is a post seizure or post arrest stage whereas compliance of the requirement is before arrest as laid down in section 41 and 42 therefore non-compliance of this provision does not we share the trial you make a the understand the difference here also it lays down in condition but it is not mandatory this is because after the aftermath what he has to do it after effecting the search or the seizure and all other things within 44 this is not mandatory this operates in a totally different sphere whereas the conditions prescribed the preconditions or the safeguards provided under section 42 41 42 43 and 50 are mandatory non-compliance of it will initiate the entire trial so these four these are the only defenses that could be available to the accused so must understand and appreciate the provisions in that manner so this is not already i thought that yes because i think bingo his lordship has taken exactly 60 minutes yes that's the hallmark of a any successful person they say time is the essence what we do are read in the limitation act time is the essence for any contract yes yeah out here we don't have anything let me check it out i was just checking it in the youtube also you didn't have any questions no questions i'm just checking it out on the facebook youtube and one has written what is the use of words if such a person so requires if it is compulsory to take him to the magistrate or a resident officer in second book now if that person wins that but that option is to be given to the accused see option has to be given to the accused this provision as i told you is enacted to protect the interest of the accused because i said wide powers are given presumptions are enacted wide power is given even on the spot he can make it because i said from public place no warrant nothing not even recording he can do it so there is a likelihood of misuse but see he can also plant any of the things within therefore to protect all these to protect the accused from all these what you call aspects say and right has been given to the accused or in precondition safe guard which is enacted in section 56 if he wants only because it's an option he an option is given to him whether he wants to be searched before the visitor officer before the magistrate that's why he gives it in writing in writing if he says that before the magistrate then he should be taken to the magistrate so therefore that's the defense he can take it he can say that i was i exercised my option to take it to the magistrate he has not done it see what the magistrate what they have to do that if we cannot be taken to the magistrate he would record the reason and conduct the search under section 100 by taking recourse to section 50 sub section 5 which has been inserted that has been interpreted by the honorable supreme court in Tophan's case saying that that can be resorted to only in exceptional cases otherwise you have to go through this procedure you have to give him option so that is because it is in the interest of the accused it is left to for him to take that exercise that option or not option has to be given in English or it has to be given mentally under the it is it is because any such option it should be made known to be understood because other if it is in a language which is not understood it is in the interest of the prosecution that he says that it has been explained and that if it is in English and if it takes that how can he exercise so that is not that may be one of the ground for him to say that there is non-compliance that itself may sometimes because this is the stringent provisions stringent provisions because harsher the offense harsher the punishment the stricter the proof so therefore any such even these single elements also may help the accused they say for a harsher punishment or a harsher this thing it has to be given literal interpretation rather than the yes yes exactly exactly so therefore you said that your substantial compliance delayed compliance partial compliance is a good meaningless because when the law says that total compliance either total compliance or non-compliance at all that has been interpreted in this and that seems to be the correct because otherwise there is now for example say how that for example student activities there let us say he should be implicated in this offense one day is going by his bicycle as a scooter the police can stop it or in the in the routine check and ask him for his documents one of them may be checking the documents other may take the key and go to his scooter open the dash box and put something in there is it not possible so therefore all these precautions are there to say that we to avoid or to prevent such misuse by the police because the power has been given to them to arrest on the spot therefore says that if you had any information you take it down writing otherwise you say if it is a private place or a public place so all those things that will are sufficient rather that is that balances the right of the accused and the right of the investigative agency and the prosecution so that is the beauty of this provisions yes Lordship was only elaborate on the registration of an FIR subsequent to the seizure in light of Lalitha Kumari's case but that would be I think beneficial now see Lalitha Kumari says that whenever an information is given of the commission of a cognizable offense the police have got no other option than to register the FIR but that is the interpretation of section 154 156 and 157 157 and even if you see that under I think para 103 or something like that they have said in five types of offenses that is I think matrimonial offenses and corruption corruption offenses and economic offenses you need not register the FIR you can make a preliminary inquiry and here see the nature of the offenses I said these are the committed by the gang and very sophisticated manner I said the how they carry how they hide this and if they get a little clue that the police will bear and that they will not get any of the evidence therefore all these procedures and that circumstance if you insist that an FIR should be first registered then it should be taken to the magistrate thereafter only you commence a investigation that is it says that was section 68 says name of the informant cannot be disclosed that is otherwise if that is disclosed I think no offense will come to light at all the informant I think he has to fear his life and no one will give any information but to say that see that is actually the information in the nature of the first information to say that there is an information you should record it in writing you need not register the FIR but the scheme of the act is that after that the sufficient safeguards are there for the accused because the information is recorded in writing to show that that is a real information the copy of it is sent to the higher officers so two proof are there two safeguards two safeguards then it is followed by your recovery which guarantees the truth of the information this itself regularity gives a kind of what you call sanctity to the entire procedure so therefore not registration and therefore it says well after completing this that person and the accused under section 52 section 52 says that if he is arrested under warrant the person and the property should be produced before the magistrate if he is arrested under the authorization he should be produced either before the station house officer or before the authorized officer under section 52 53 he himself is the investigating officer at that time the person who conducted the search submits the report and that is the meaning if he sees section 53 that the section 53 the central government after consultation of the power to invest in the office state government see on the report or see based on this report he has to proceed any officer of the day noted under the state government notification published this portion of section I think that is the this one provision yes section 36 the jurisdiction jurisdiction subsection subsection 1 d a special court being upon perusal of the police report of the facts constituting an offense under this act or upon complaint made by an officer of the central government so there is no a fire or the information so when he searches it otherwise he can file a private complaint also on that only he can take cognizance yes and it is in compartment it is not in the violation of the dictum of the Lalitha Kumari because that itself provides right yes you can say but they are judgments in which it has been said compulsorily like Arif Khan consent was taken by the police but case went in favor of the accused what is that what is that can you it is in continuation of the previous question I can read the entire question what you had answered first what is the use if such person so requires if it is compulsorily to take him to the magistrate or visited officer in section 50 but there are judgments in which it has been said held to be mandatory like in Arif Khan consent was taken by the police but case went in favor of the accused that Arif Khan it has been explained now it is not laying down the correct procedure experienced law I think that has been explained in this decision all this earlier that was not the intent meant you can't read that into section 50 is what has been said of course the detail I have not read out only the salient aspects I just read out if you go through this they have reproduced the step by step step by step and they have yes so it is a very elaborate the lengthy decision but through so light on it and it has cleared much of the gray areas and I would say there are hardly any gray areas are left earlier that is whether the complainant and the investigative officer could be one end the same whether without registration of the FIR with the procedure you know because generally under CRPC we say that all before registration of the FIR any proceedings are conducted we say it is invalid I think of the high court our high court so division venture decision is there it is invalid but here the law permits it this is a special act here the CRPC is made applicable not made applicable en masse some provisions are applicable made applicable some provisions to some action so that's how it has been made applicable to the act yes your insights want to conclude the session yes again thanks Mr. Vikas for facilitating this wonderful opportunity in fact as I told you earlier we were missing his lordship it used to be like a classroom used to get groomed when we were sitting in the court hall and again you have facilitated by giving us this opportunity and the topic chosen is such a wonderful topic especially for the practitioners practicing on the criminal side may it be on the trial side or before the high court or supreme court these aspects are very important either for watching or for conducting the trial and his none other person could have been so erudite and precise except his lordship thank you very much your lordships for this wonderful session and thank you Mr. Vikas for giving us this wonderful opportunity and for me also in particular to speak about his lordship and this particular presentation as your lordship had said that the judgment has thrown the true light I will say that his session has also actually thrown the true light we have all come out of the dark ls which could have been in the mindset and especially for the youngsters it will help them and tomorrow we will be having session on tips on translation which is an important aspect not only for the examination part but also once you are doing in the high court what could be the tips for translation so that there are lists of mistakes it would be by Mr. Vasant Patwardhan who is a Srishtradhar at Bidami and he is also taking a lot of sessions down south in the Karnataka but do stay connected with us tomorrow at 6 p.m and thank you sir your session was excellent and we all learned from it thank you Moshka