Mandatory enquiry under private complaint procedure does not apply to authorised NDPS complaints supported by investigation materials.

The mandatory enquiry under Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to private complaints, especially where the case is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, but it does not govern a complaint filed by an authorised public servant under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act on the basis of seizure, enquiry, recorded statements and other collected materials. Such materials may sufficiently support cognizance without the full witness examination contemplated for ordinary private complaints. On that basis, a committal order based on the authorised officer's complaint is not vitiated for want of Section 202(2) enquiry, and the Sessions Court is bound to proceed and take cognizance under Section 193.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the mandatory enquiry under Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to a complaint laid by an authorised officer under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the basis of materials collected during investigation or enquiry; (ii) whether the order of committal was illegal and whether the Sessions Court was bound to take cognizance under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the mandatory enquiry under Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to a complaint laid by an authorised officer under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the basis of materials collected during investigation or enquiry.

Analysis: The requirement of examination of all witnesses under Section 202(2) was treated as mandatory in the context of private complaints triable exclusively by the Court of Session, where the object is to protect the accused from an easy discharge and to place him in a position comparable to an accused in a police case. The complaint in the present matter was, however, laid by a public servant acting under statutory authority after seizure, enquiry, recording of statement and collection of expert and documentary materials. The statutory scheme under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 permits cognizance on a complaint by an authorised officer, and the materials already collected supplied a sufficient basis for proceeding.

Conclusion: The mandatory procedure under Section 202(2) was held inapplicable to such a complaint, and no illegality attached to the committal on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of committal was illegal and whether the Sessions Court was bound to take cognizance under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Since the complaint by the authorised officer was validly supported by investigation materials and the accused had been furnished the relevant documents, the committal order was held to be legal and proper. The reference court could not treat the committal as vitiated for want of the enquiry contemplated in ordinary private complaint cases. The Sessions Court, therefore, was required to proceed in accordance with the committal and take cognizance of the offence.

Conclusion: The committal was upheld as legal, and the Sessions Court was bound to take cognizance under Section 193.

Final Conclusion: The reference failed because the complaint by the authorised officer under the special statute was not governed by the mandatory enquiry applicable to private complaints, and the committal order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: The mandatory enquiry under Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is confined to private complaints and does not apply where a complaint is instituted by an authorised public servant under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the basis of prior investigation or enquiry materials sufficient to found cognizance.

---