KAMAL KISHORE Vs. S D MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint made by a public servant relating to commission of an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called the Act), is the Metropolitan Magistrate bound to examine the complainant and the witnesses before passing an order of committal ? Whereas the petitioner says that the Metropolitan Magistrate is bound to. as per the respondent, there is no such requirement. The question arises in the circumstances detailed below.

(2.) We are told that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, West Bengal intercepted a lorry allegedly carrying machinery items from Delhi to Calcutta meant for export to Saudi Arabia and U. K. and on examination of the consignment, recovered therefrom 743 Kgs. of Hashish. This led to the arrest of the petitioner under section 29 read with section 21 of the Act. Later a complaint was filed by the respondent, a public servant, under section 29 read with section 21 of the Act in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi who, without recording the statement of the complainant or of any of the witnesses cited by him, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. It may, however, be noticed that the order which reads as under, was passed before the constitution of the Special Courts :- "I have satisfied that the complete copies of documents as required under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code ., 1973 has been (sic) supplied to both the accused persons. The offence alleged is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, hence the accused persons are committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The Ahlmad shall prepare the file and send it to the Court of Sessions. Accused persons will appear before the Court of Sessions on 16-4-1987."

(3.) The petitioner feels that: for the reason noticed above, the order of committal is bad.