Mandatory Section 202 inquiry procedure in sessions complaint cases does not automatically void proceedings absent proven prejudice.

In a complaint case triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the proviso to Section 202(2) of the Code is mandatory once the Magistrate undertakes an inquiry and examines witnesses, requiring the complainant to produce all witnesses. Non-compliance, however, does not automatically vitiate committal or later proceedings unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown. A belated objection to the committal irregularity, raised only after the trial had substantially progressed and evidence was recorded, could not be entertained under Section 465 in the absence of demonstrated prejudice. The matter was directed to proceed from the stage already reached and be decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Section 202(2) of the Code is mandatory in a complaint case triable exclusively by the Court of Session, and whether non-compliance with that proviso vitiates the committal proceedings; (ii) Whether a belated objection to the alleged irregularity in committal can be entertained after the trial has substantially progressed, in the absence of demonstrated failure of justice.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Section 202(2) of the Code is mandatory in a complaint case triable exclusively by the Court of Session, and whether non-compliance with that proviso vitiates the committal proceedings.

Analysis: Section 200 permits cognizance on complaint and, in appropriate cases, immediate issue of process. Section 202 is an enabling provision under which the Magistrate may postpone process and hold an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In sessions-triable complaint cases, if the Magistrate chooses to hold such an inquiry and to examine witnesses on oath, the proviso to Section 202(2) requires the complainant to produce all witnesses. The provision is couched in mandatory language, but it operates within the broader scheme of Sections 200, 203, 204 and 208, which shows that inquiry under Section 202 is not an indispensable precondition in every case. The omission to follow the proviso does not automatically nullify the proceedings; the effect depends on the facts and on whether prejudice has been caused.

Conclusion: The proviso is mandatory in the course of an inquiry once undertaken, but non-compliance does not in every case vitiate the committal or subsequent proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether a belated objection to the alleged irregularity in committal can be entertained after the trial has substantially progressed, in the absence of demonstrated failure of justice.

Analysis: Section 465 bars reversal or alteration of orders for irregularities in proceedings unless a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. Sub-section (2) requires the Court to consider whether the objection could and should have been raised earlier. Where the accused remains silent until the trial has substantially advanced, and the objection is raised only at the stage of arguments after evidence and defence have been recorded, the defect is treated as waived for practical purposes unless real prejudice is shown. The long pendency and near-completion of the trial made a remand for fresh inquiry unnecessary.

Conclusion: The belated objection could not be entertained, as no failure of justice was established and the objection ought to have been raised at the earlier stage.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was directed to proceed from the stage already reached, with the Sessions Court to hear arguments and dispose of the case on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint case triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the proviso to Section 202(2) governs an inquiry when the Magistrate chooses to hold one, but non-compliance does not automatically vitiate the proceedings unless the accused shows prejudice and raises the objection at the earliest stage, in light of Section 465.

---