IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54580 of 2007 SANJAY SHARMA, SON OF SRI JUGESHWAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PATIYANA, P.S. BIKRAM, DISTRICT- PATNA……………………………………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. KIRAN DEVI, WIFE OF RAMAVTAR SHARMA, VILLAGE- DATIYANA, P.S. BIKRAM, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ------------ 2. 20.2.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 31.8.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No.4 of 2004 by Sri Kamal Kishore Sinha, the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Patna, in respect of order dated 6.12.2003 passed by Sri M.K. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danapur in G.R. No.528 of 2002(Bikram P.S. Case No.81 of 2002), whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that during the course of investigation all accused persons who had been named in the F.I.R. including the petitioner have surrendered in the court on 12.4.2002 and on the basis thereof they were allowed bail whereas after completion of investigation chargesheet had been submitted and the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance had been pleased to omit to take cognizance against the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the cognizance had not - 2 - been taken against him the transferee court where the case was transferred could not have issued summons against him. It is by now well settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender and where cognizance is once taken it will include all persons named in the charge sheet unless specifically omitted by name and reason. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner figures in the chargesheet but for the reasons best known to the learned Magistrate his name did not figure in the order taking cognizance. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once cognizance had not been taken against him he cannot be summoned to face trial. As stated above, admittedly, the petitioner had been named in the chargesheet and cognizance has been taken of the offences. The omission of the name of the petitioner in the cognizance taking order appears to be typographical error and such small mistakes cannot give any unwarranted advantage to the petitioner. In the circumstances, stated above, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)