IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.3047 of 2010 BISHO YADAV @ KAMLESH YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR **** /3/ 04.03.2010 An explanation had been called for from the Magistrate as to why cognizance was not taken under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code despite there being enough material in the first information report as well as the case diary to warrant the same. An explanation from Md. Manzoor Alam, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Civil Court, Madhepura, has been received, who has explained that he is not the person who had taken cognizance in the matter and, therefore, it was difficult for him to commit the case post cognizance stage. While he was recording evidence also he did not think it necessary to commit the case to the Court of sessions during trial. However, he says that he has committed the case after this Court’s explanation. I am surprised as to how he has taken a contrary stand in his explanation while on the one hand saying that the case did not warrant the committal of the case even during trial and later on did so after receiving this High Court’s letter. Since, the Officer is very junior and obviously a novice, I do not think it necessary to go any further in the matter. He should be more 2 watchful while discharging his judicial functions which is not administrative and involves disperation of justice which is the essential core of the judiciary. Let the order be communicated to him. S.A. (Anjana Prakash, J.)