IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27671 of 2007 Krishna Mahto @ Hare Krishna Prasad Singh, Son of Late Pyare Mahto , resident of Village- Patan bigha, P.S. Islampur, District- Nalanda -------- Petitioner -Versus – 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sukhdeo Prasad Nisad, Son of Akal Nisad, resident of Village- Patan bigha, P.S. Islampur, District-Nalanda. ------- Opp.Parties. ------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party No.2 : Mr. Awadhesh Kr.Sinha, Advocate ----------- O R D E R The petitioner, who is one of the F.I.R. named accused, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 22.2.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa , Nalanda in Khodaganj P.S. Case no.17 of 2004 , whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act against all the accused including the petitioner. Without going into the merits and demerits of the impugned order as canvassed by the learned counsels for the parties, I propose to dispose of this application on another issue without being hyper-technical and in upholding the tenets of law. In the case of Jaiswal Bus Service –Vrs. State of Bihar (1980 BBCJ, 603, a Division Bench of this Court has expressed that some of the Chief Judicial Magistrates maintaining cyclostyled order sheet, in which - 2 - blank spaces have been left for the names of the accused and the names of the Magistrate to whom the cases are being referred to for disposal and deprecated such dubious practice since summoning an accused person has always been considered to be a judicial order, which required application of judicial mind. However, the aforesaid Judgment has had little impact on the subordinate judiciary and the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate , Hilsa still continues to use such cyclostyled order sheets, which would be apparent from the impugned order , which has been appended to this application and is sought to be quashed. Several provisions in Chaper-XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure use the word “Cognizance”. The very first Section in the said Chapter is Section 190 Cr.P.C. which lays down how cognizance of offences will be taken by a Magistrate. However, the word “Cognizance” has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Dictionary meaning of the word “Cognizance” is “Judicial hearing of a matter”. The meaning of the word has been explained by judicial pronouncement and it has acquired a definite connotation. The earliest decision on the point is the case of R.R. Chari –Vrs. State of U.P. (A.I.R. 1951 SC 207) wherein it was held that taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate, as such, applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Similar views have been expressed in the Case of Darshan Singh-Vrs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 2372). 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 under - 3 - Section 173 Cr.P.C. or upon information of a person other than a Police Officer. Therefore, the expression “ taking cognizance” means judicial application of mind of the Magistrate to the facts mentioned in the complaint or in the police report or upon any information of a person other than a Police Officer with a view to taking further action. In Kishun Singh-Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in (1993)2 SCC 16 it was held that when the Magistrate takes notice of the accusations and applies his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or police report or information and on being satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence, decides to initiate judicial proceedings against the alleged offender, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence. When taking of cognizance requires the application of judicial mind to the facts mentioned in the complaint or police report or upon information received, then it is required of the Magistrate taking such cognizance to be discrete and also state the reasons therefor, since it affects the personal liberty of an individual. In the instant case, the impugned order, as stated above, happens to be a cyclostyled copy, has left the spaces after reference and case number blank. Thereafter, in the first paragraph the number and date of the charge sheet, Sections where under charge sheet has been submitted, have been left blank. Then again space after charge sheet has been left blank for filling up whether cognizance was taken or not and then blank space has been left for incorporating the Sections whereunder cognizance has been taken and then space has been left blank to incorporate the court, to which the case was being transferred and eventually the space has been left to fill in - 4 - the next date which was being fixed in the case. The cyclostyled order sheet does not reveal the fact of the Magistrate having applied his judicial mind to the facts stated in the complaint, the police report or information received. Such order sheet cannot be sustained in law and has to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.2.2006 passed by the learned Additional .Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa , Nalanda is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to act in accordance with law and procedure and pass fresh orders in respect of the cognizance taken. Let a copy of this order be circulated amongst the Judicial Officers by way of information and taking necessary action after obtaining permission of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 19th November,2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.