# Satish Chandra Revisionist v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 6 ILRA 33
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-06-06
- **Bench:** Abhai Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-chandra-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43954
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

6 All. Satish Chandra Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

33
----------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.06.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABHAI KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No.- 1726 Of 2016

Satish Chandra ...Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for Revisionist:
Ajay Singh Sengar

Counsel for Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Present revision was filed against the order dated 31.3.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi, District -
Jalaun in Case No. 471 of 2016 whereby learned Magistrate took cognizance on the chargesheet.
Revisionist argued that learned Magistrate has not applied his mind before taking the cognizance and in the
context, it is also submitted that on printed proforma, fillings are being made by the office of the learned
magistrate and learned magistrate put his short signatures upon that.
Court observed that The first contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist regarding the application of
mind cannot be accepted, as from the impugned order dated 31.3.2016 it can very easily be said that the
learned magistrate has perused the record after receiving the chargesheet. It is also observed by magistrate
that prima facie case is made out. These very words in very clear terms discloses the application of mind. The
second contention of the learned counsel regarding the filling of gaps in a printed proforma is concerned, also
do not find any reason to believe, because the impugned order is typed order, except for dates which are
being filled by pen.
The criminal revision is hereby dismissed.

List of Cases Cited
1. Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another, 2009 (64) ACC 774
2. Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2009 (9) ADJ Pg. 778
3. Qavi Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another, Criminal Revision No. 3209 of 2010, decided on 14.10.2011
4. Anil Saran Vs. The State of Bihar and another, 1995 SCC (6) 142
5. Darshan Singh Ram Kishan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1971 AIR 2372

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 31.3.2016 passed by
Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi, District - Jalaun in Case No. 471 of 2016 (State Vs. Satish Chandra &
others) whereby learned Magistrate took cognizance on the chargesheet filed by Police Station -
Churkhi, District - Jalaun.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that learned Magistrate has not
applied his mind before taking the cognizance and in the context, it is also submitted that on printed
proforma, fillings are being made by the office of the learned magistrate and learned magistrate put
his short signatures upon that.

5. Learned AGA argued that there is no set pattern for taking the cognizance on the police
report and in this case learned magistrate has applied his mind as is clear from the order dated
31.3.2016 in which it has been written that the matter has been perused.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist on the basis of the law propounded by the Apex
Court in the case of Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another, 2009 (64) ACC
774, asserted that application of mind is not there in the impugned order, Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph 15 of the said judgment observed as follows:

"15.Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken
cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and
applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information
received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material filed
therewith. It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is
satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate
proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken
cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender."

7. Learned counsel further based his contentions on the basis of law laid down by the
another bench of this court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2009 (9) ADJ Pg.
778 and in the case of Qavi Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another, Criminal Revision No. 3209
of 2010, decided on 14.10.2011, whereby it has been held that if application of mind by the
magistrate is lacking in the order and there is printed proforma upon which fillings are made, then
such cognizance is not sustainable.

8. In the case of Ankit (supra), the court observed as under:-

"At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on
the charge-sheet, the court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking
cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be
6 All. Satish Chandra Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

35
quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the court below for passing fresh order on the chargesheet after applying judicial mind."

9. The contention of the learned counsel is very well supported by the laws described
above but certainly that cannot be on any blanket application of these laws rather each and every
case is to be seen in its own perspective because Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently observed that
there is no such principle for taking cognizance. Hon'bel Apex Court in the case of Anil Saran Vs.
The State of Bihar and another, 1995 SCC (6) 142 has observed as under:-

"We find no force in the contention. Though the Code defines "cognizable offence"
and "non-cognizable offence", the word `cognizance' has not been defined in the Code. But it is
now settled law that the court takes cognisance of the offence and not the offender. As soon as the
Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the offence stated in the complaint or the police report etc,
cognisance is said to to be taken. Cognizance of the offence takes place when the Magistrate takes
judicial notice of the offence. Whether the Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence on a
complaint or on a police report or upon information of a person other than the police officer,
depends upon further taken pursuant thereto and the attending circumstances of the particular case
including the mode in which case is sought to be dealt with or the nature of the action taken by the
Magistrate. Under sub-section (1) of section 190 of the code, any Magistrate may take cognizance
of an offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, (b) upon a
police report of such facts, and (c) upon information received from any person other than a police
officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed."

10. The stand of the Hon'ble Apex Court is consistently same even in the year 1971 in the
case of Darshan Singh Ram Kishan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1971 AIR 2372, has held that
there is no set pattern for taking the congnizance. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as
under:

"As has often been held taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or
indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected
commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a magistrate first
takes judicial notice of an offence. This is the position whether the magistrate takes cognizance of
an offence on a complaint or on a police report, or upon information of a person other than a
police officer. Therefore, when a magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report,
prima facie he does so of the offence or offences disclosed in such report."

11. It is apparently clear from the above observations that there cannot be any set pattern
for taking cognizance by the magistrate and it does not involve any formal action and the action
followed by that can very well ascertain as to whether magistrate has applied its mind or not.

12. The first contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist regarding the application
of mind cannot be accepted, as from the impugned order dated 31.3.2016 it can very easily be said
that the learned magistrate has perused the record after receiving the chargesheet. It is also
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

observed by him that prima facie case is made out. These very words in very clear terms discloses
the application of mind by the magistrate, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no application
of mind by the magistrate concerned before taking cognizance.

13. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel regarding the filling of gaps in a
printed proforma is concerned, also do not find any reason to believe, because the impugned order
is typed order, except for dates which are being filled by pen. So far as entries are concerned, like
'Case Crime No.' 'Parties Name' 'Sections' etc., these are usually filled up by the office only and it is
not necessarily to be filled up by the magistrate himself in his own handwriting. Order of taking
cognizance is not like the order passed under Section 111 Cr.P.C. It is consistent view of this Court
that it should not be on printed proforma by filling the gaps but the conditions therein are certainly
different than that of taking cognizance upon police report in a proceeding under Section 111
Cr.P.C. Report of the police station is being submitted and magistrate has to take action after taking
the stock of the report and in that case application of mind is necessary after considering all the
facts and circumstances that are to be forwarded by the police station and a conclusion has to be
drawn by the magistrate concerned. In the cases before a magistrate for taking cognizance on the
police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. such type of application of mind is not necessary. Police
personnel after investigating the matter and coming to a conclusion that case is made out against
the accused persons files a report and upon that magistrate while taking cognizance is to apply his
mind regarding the prima facie case is made out unlike the clear cut observation that is to be taken
in the proceeding under Section 111 Cr.P.C. If dates and other fillings are being made by the office
then it cannot be said that there is no application of mind rather it is the language of the order that is
to be seen and following action that is taken and in the present case as observed above, magistrate
has applied his mind and after that has taken cognizance and issued summons.

14. In the attuning circumstances, I fail to find any weight in the submissions of learned
counsel and in consequence, revision lacks merit and liable to be dismissed.

15. The criminal revision is hereby dismissed.
----------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.06.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR, J.

Criminal Revision No.- 3790 Of 2015

Kanhaya Lal Gupta ...Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for Revisionist: