Kailash Singh vs State of U.P.

Hon''ble Ashok Srivastava, J.—This revision has been directed against the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 5.11.2011 through which he has taken cognizance of the offence regarding which a charge-sheet was filed before him. It has been submitted from the side of the revisionist that from perusal of the order it is evident that the learned Magistrate passed the order without application of his mind and without considering the chargesheet and without going through the case diary. In this connection my attention has been drawn from the side of the revisionist towards Amit Garg v. State of U.P., 2011(5) ADJ 5 690 and Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttranchal, 2009(1) AIR Jhar 355,. On the other hand my attention has been drawn towards Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports v. Roshan Lal Agrawal and others, 2003 (46) ACC 686 SC; U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 SC 1456; Kanti Bhadra Singh v. State of West Bengal, 2000 (40) ACC 441 SC and Mohd. Sayeed v. State of U.P., 2011 (73) ACC 750 (LB), from the side of the State.

I have gone again through these case laws. In the case Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports (Supra), the learned Magistrate had passed the following orders:

Cognizance taken, Register the case. Issue summons to the accused". The Apex Court has held that this order by itself indicates that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind and had taken cognizance of the case. The Apex Court has discussed the term cognizance in the case of S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Ltd. and Others, and has stated that expression "cognizance" has not been defined in the Code. But the word (cognizance) is of indefinite import. It has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law. It merely means "become aware or and when used with reference to a Court or a Judge, it connotes "to take notice of judicially". It indicates the point when a Court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone.

In the instant case, fact wise, law as laid down in Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (supra) squarely applies. From perusal of the order impugned herein it does not transpire that before taking cognizance of the case and passing an order thereon the Magistrate had not seen the case diary or the charge-sheet. It is needless to say that while taking cognizance of an offence no detailed order is required to be passed by the Magistrate. In the above circumstances I do not find that there is any force in this revision and accordingly it is dismissed at the admission stage.