The evidence clearly shows, GUD-4997 was not a public conveyance. A private vehicle would not come within the expression ‘public place’ as explained in Section 43. The case would come under Section 42. It is an admitted position, there was total non-compliance of the requirements of Section 42. Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 as followed in State of Rajasthan v. Jagraj Singh, (2016) 11 SCC 687 is absolutely clear. Total non-compliance of Section 42 is impermissible. The rigor of Section 42 may get lessened in situations dealt with in the conclusion drawn in Karnail Singh. But in no case, total non-compliance of Section 42 can be accepted.
– Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit, Boota Singh v. State of Haryana, [Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 2021].