The judgment emphasizes the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the prejudice caused to the accused due to non-compliance.

( 1 ) THE accused-appellant was committed to the City Sessions Court by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate of Bangalore city to face the trial for offences u/ss. 18 and 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short hereafter ). The allegations against her were brief and simple. P. W. 1 the Superintendent of the Customs Intelligence, Headquarters Bangalore received an information on 22-7-1986 that Narcotic Drugs were concealed in the house of the appellant in her residence at No. 12. Devanahalli Subbanna Galli, Sadara Patrappa Road, Bangalore and he obtained authorization for searching the aforesaid premises from his superior officer viz. , the Assistant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore u/s. 41 (i) of the Act and taking two panchas carried on search in that house at about 8-30 a. m. in the morning. In one of the rooms they found two bags containing 2. 5 kgs. and 5 kg. Ganja and also 30 grams opium all valued at Rs. 700/ -. They were seized under a panchanama at the spot and thereafter the accused-appellant was taken to the office and questioned there. She made a statement admitting possession of the same which came to be recorded by one of the staff members of P. W. 1. Sometime later a Cell for Narcotic Drugs was established to deal effectively the offences of this nature. P. W. 1 handed over all papers to the said Cell and the seized contraband articles were lying in their godown till they were produced before the Court on 11-2-1988 during trial. It is also the case of the prosecution that some of the officials who came to handle these articles in course of time subjected samples from the contraband articles for chemical analysis to the State Forensic Laboratory and a report came to be received that the samples sent were of ganja and opium respectively. However, even before these reports could be received, P. W. 1filed his complaint u/s. 200 Cr. P. C. against the appellant before the Committal Court on 11/12-12-1986.

( 2 ) THE Committal Court without examining the complainant presumably for the reason that he is a public servant and without calling upon him to examine all the witnesses in support of the case as required under proviso to S. 202 (2), Cr. P. C. passed the committal order whereupon the Sessions Court framed charge against the appellant and tried her for this offence. Two witnesses were examined viz. , the complainant and the panch witness P. W. 2 during trial. Accepting the prosecution evidence, the Sessions Court found the appellant guilty u/s. 18 of the Act and sentenced her to R. I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default sentence and also convicted her u/s. 20 (b) (i) of the Act and sentenced her to 3 years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default sentence directing the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court.

( 3 ) AS various points have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant they will be discussed seriatim in the course of this judgment. The first contention is that non-examination of all the witnesses as required under proviso to S. 202 (2) Cr. P. C. has resulted in prejudice to the accused inasmuch as when the charge was framed, the appellant had not had the benefit of the case of the prosecution that he had to meet. S. 202 (2) Cr. P. C. reads thus :"in an inquiry u/sub-s. (i), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath; provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. "it is particularly necessary to note the words "he shall call upon" under this proviso which obviously makes it mandatory to the Magistrate to examine all the witnesses the complainant proposes to exami