( 1 ) IS the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Babubhai Parshottamdas v. State 22 GLR 1232 impliedly overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Lakshmi Brahman AIR 1983 SC 439 ? This question was raised before our learned brother M. B. Shah J. in Kantibhai v. State 26 GLR 339. He held that the said Full Bench decision stands impliedly overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Brahmans case (supra ). N. H. Bhatt J. in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2199 of 1985 decided on 22-11-1985 did not agree with the view taken by M. B. Shah J. in Kantilals case (supra) and held otherwise. Therefore when Misc. Criminal Application No. 441 of 1986 came up for hearing before our learned brother D. C. Gheewala J. he thought it fit to refer the matter to a larger bench in view of the conflicting decisions given by M B. Shah J. and N. H. Bhatt J. For the same reason our learned brother J. P. Desai J. thought it fit to refer Misc. Criminal Application No. 1318 of 1986 to a larger Bench. That is how both these applications have been placed before us for final disposal. Another question which has been raised before us is is whether sec. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by Criminal Procedure (Gujarat Amendment) Act 1976 continues to apply in the State of Gujarat or new sec. 167 as amended by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 1978 being Indian Parliament Act No. 45 of 1978 applies in this State ?

( 2 ) IN order to properly appreciate the questions arising in these two applications it will be necessary to notice how sec. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has undergone changes from time to time. When enacted in 1973 sec. 167 read as under: 167 Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours: (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by sec. 57 and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation if he is not below the rank of sub- inspector shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case from time to time authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial. and considers further detention unnecessary. he may order the accused to be forwarded to Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that: (a) the Magistrate may authorise detention of the accused person otherwise than in custody of the police. beyond the period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so. but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this section for a total period exceeding sixty days and op the expiry of the said period of sixty days the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail and every person released on bail under this section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter. (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him. (c) no Magistrate of the second class Dot specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. Explanation: If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph (b) the