PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) EVEN before the ink in certain judgments has become dry, divergence of view has surfaced and doubt regarding their correctness has arisen, relating to certain provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the 'act' ). Though only one question was REFERRED TO the Full Bench for adjudication, members of the Bar pleaded that several other questions need a fresh look and therefore we have primarily considered the following questions : (1) Whether a Court of Session can during transitional period as provided in Section 36-D of the Act take cognizance of an offence under the Act as a court of original jurisdiction without the accused being committed to it for trial ? (2) Whether a remand beyond a period of fifteen days as indicated in Section 36-A (1) (b) is permissible ? (3) Whether the conditions in Section 37 of the Act relating to grant of bail override the effect of the proviso to Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'code,) and/or whether the said proviso to Section 167 (2) of the Code has no application to an accused under the Act ? (4) Whether the procedures prescribed in Sections 42, 43, 44, 49, 50 and 57 are mandatory in nature and any non-compliance of the requirements contained therein renders the proceeding vitiated ? (5) Whether the compliance or otherwise aspect of the requirements under the Sections indicated at question (4) can be considered at the time of considering a bail application ? (6) Whether an officer duly authorised under Section 42, who intends to search any person under Sections 42, 43 and 44 of the Act, is required to inform the person concerned that if he so desires he is to be taken to the nearest gazetted officer or a Magistrate as provided under Section 50 (1) of the Act ? (7) Whether power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised during investigation of an offence under the Act, or while dealing with a bail application ?

( 2 ) ONLY the first question has been REFERRED TO the Full Bench because a Division Bench, while considering the reference made by a learned single Judge in respect of the cases under consideration, did not agree with the view expressed by another Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Orissa, (1992) 5 OCR 107. So far as some other questions are concerned, the referring, Division Bench did not accept the view expressed by some learned single Judges of this Court. In the ordinary course, therefore, the view of the Division Bench would have prevailed and in the absence of a reference in respect of those questions it would not have been necessary for us to delve into the matter. But in view of the circumstances indicated above, we have taken up the questions enumerated above for a detailed analysis.

( 3 ) BEFORE grappling with the problems posed before us, it is necessary to look into the legislative history of the Act. From a conspectus of the provisions and the objects of enactment, it is clear that the statute was enacted to provide stringent provisions for control and regulation of operation relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The intention of the legislature to make the provisions stringent and to thwart attempts by the accused to slip-through the loopholes is apparent from Act 2 of 1989 coming into force with effect from 29-5-198 which inter alia substituted Section 37. The object of enactment of Section 37 is to restrict grant of bail in certain specified cases, which the legislature thought to be grievous in nature. The offences are non-bailable by virtue of level of punishments. But on technical grounds, drug offenders were being released on bail. In the light of certain difficulties faced in the enforcement of the Act, the need to amend law to further strengthen it was felt necessary. Restrictions were put by the legislature on grant of bail relating to offences which carry punishment of five years or more.

( 4 ) STATUTES