IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45167 of 2009 NAMI LAL RAI @ NAMI LAL YADAV & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 05 29.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the opposite party no.-2. The submission is that the order of cognizance dated 19.3.2008 in Complaint Case No. 888 of 2006, T.R. No. 797 of 2007 is bad inasmuch as no statement of the complainant has been recorded on S.A. and merely after examining other witnesses cognizance has been taken. Reliance is placed on Section 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of cognizance in the very opening lines records that the statement of the complainant has been taken on oath. He has fully supported the allegations. Thereafter it refers to the statement during enquiry of three other witnesses. Insofar as this Court is concerned, the recordings of Court in the order-sheet are sacrosanct. If the petitioner is aggrieved by what he contends to be an error of record, his remedy lies first before that very Court which passed the order. There is no occasion for this Court to 2 interfere. It is only after thereafter that occasion may or may not arise for this Court to consider issues. The application stands dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)