O. P. PRADHAN, J. ( 1 ) A short and interesting question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the report of Chemical Examiner/analyst can be acted upon by the Court without examining him, if the report is not supported by reasons for the opinion expressed by the Expert. Some facts may be noticed. ( 2 ) ON 15. 2. 1991 at about 8. 30 p. m. applicant Umakant Bajpayee was found in possession of contraband (Charas) weighing about 1 tola by police on Chaupeypur - Rasoolabad Road within the circle of Police Station Sheoli, District Kanpur Dehat. The applicant had no licence permit or authorisation for possessing the said contraband. Accordingly, a case under section 20 of the Narcotic brugs and Psychotropic. Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the N. D. P. S. Act) was registered against him and the investigation followed. The applicant is being prosecuted in the Court of Special Judge (N. D. P. S. Act) Kanpur Dehat. It further appears that a sample of the conutraband seized from the applicant was sent for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, U. P. , Lucknow and the Chemical Examiner submitted a report dated 24. 6. 1991. saying that on physical and chemical tests, the sample was found Charas. No reasons or other material have been incorporated in the said report of the Chemical Examiner. A copy of this report was furnished to the applicant on his request and on a further application of the applicant for being supplied with the material data on which the Chemical Examiner founded his report, the Court concerned vide order dated 16. 10. 1992 observed that the data can be given by the Chemical Examiner, which examined on oath and the applicant may cross-examine him if he is produced by the prosecution. It was further observed by the Court in the said order that if the prosecution does not produce the Chemical Examiner, the applicant may himself examine him. Accordingly, the application was rejected by the Court. This led the applicant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) THIS application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been heard on merits with the consent of the Assistant Government Advocate who also agreed that it may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. ( 4 ) IN view of section 293 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) THIS application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been heard on merits with the consent of the Assistant Government Advocate who also agreed that it may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. ( 4 ) IN view of section 293 Cr. P. C. , the reports of Government Scientific Experts enumerated in sub-section (4) thereof may be used in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chemical Examiner is one of the Government Scientific Experts mentioned under sub-section (4) of the said section, Thus, Chemical Examiners report is a piece of evidence and the only protection to it is that it does not require any formal proof. It is, however, open to the Court if it thinks fit to call the Chemical Examiner and examine him as to the subject-matter of his report, as provided in sub section (2) of the said section. ( 5 ) AS long as the experts report shows that the opinion is based on observation which lead to a conclusion that the opinion can be accepted, there is no necessity of examining the person making the report but should there be any doubt, it can always be resolved by calling and examining the person making the report. (A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 975 - Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash ). ( 6 ) THE opinion of an expert must be supported by reasons and it is the reasons and not ipse dixit which is of importance in assessing the merit of the experts opinion. (A. I. R. 1968 Bombay 127 - Palaniswamy Vaiyapuri v. State ). ( 7 ) IT is not the province of the expert to act as a Judge or Jury. The real function of the expert is to put before the Court all the materials together with reasons which induce him to come to the conclusion so that the Court although not an expert may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials. (A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 14 - State - Delhi Administration v. Pali Ram ). (A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 14 - State - Delhi Administration v. Pali Ram ). ( 8 ) IN the case of Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration reported in A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 905, it was observed by the apex Court that the report of the expert was used as evidence by the prosecution without examining him in Court and neither the court thought it fit, not the prosecution/the accused filed any application to summon and examine the expert as to the subject-matter of his report and if such an application were filed for the examination of the expert, the Court was bound to summon the expert. ( 9 ) IT, therefore, follows that a bald report of expert without reasons is of no value at all and that the Court is not to believe the ipse dixit of the expert, who is not only to provide reasons to support his opinion but the result should be demonstrable also. The Court is required to assess the evidence of expert like other evidence and the court should not surrender its own judgment to that of the expert. The correct approach for the Court would be to weigh the reasons on which the experts report is based and the quality of expert s opinion would ultimately depend on the soundness of the reasons on which is founded. ( 10 ) IT may also be pointed out that Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the life and personal liberty of an individual by providing that no person would be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. So the importance of procedure established by law is also enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Code of Criminal Procedure has provided for the procedure about a criminal trial having safeguards for the accused persons in their defence. After 1955, a step in advance was taken in facilitating the accused to formulate his defence properly by providing for giving of the copies of documents on which the prosecution relies. The privilege give to the accused cannot be made redundant by refusing these documents. After 1955, a step in advance was taken in facilitating the accused to formulate his defence properly by providing for giving of the copies of documents on which the prosecution relies. The privilege give to the accused cannot be made redundant by refusing these documents. ( 11 ) IT is noteworthy that the identify of the contraband which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant may be sought to be established by the prosecution on the basis of the Chemical Examiner s report, which as already indicated earlier, does not incorporate any material or reason s for expressing the opinion that the sample was found to be Charas. Unless the Chemkal Examiner furnishes the data/material collected by him as a result of tests conducted by him, the opinion expressed by him regarding the identity of the sample analysed by him cannot be safely accepted by the Court. In such a situation the opinion of the Chemical Examiner would be mere ipse dixit, which is not liable to be accepted by the Court in absence of reasons in support thereof. ( 12 ) IN the instant case the Special Judge trying the case would be well advised if he exercises his discretion under sub-section (2) of section 293 Cr. P. C. to summon and examine the Chemical Examiner as to the subject-matter of his report dated 24. 6. 1991 and clicitthe reasons and materials for expressing the opinion contained in the said report. This may be considered all the more advisable in view of the penal provisions of the N. D. P. S. Act, particularly when a minimum sentence of ten years with a minimum fine of rupees one lakh has been provided under section 20 (b) (ii) thereof. ( 13 ) WITH these observations, the application under section 482 Cr. P. C. is finally disposed of. Petition allowed. .