IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR WJC No 762 of 2011 Chunnu Ravidas Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr ----------- 2 02.08.2011 This case has been put up on the office objection as to its maintainability as a writ petition of habeas corpus. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is in judicial custody but the custody is illegal. He is not in judicial custody pursuant to any valid order of remand and, as such, being an illegal custody, the writ petition is maintainable. In order to substantiate that he is in illegal custody, he submits that pursuant to a first information report lodged under Sections 364, 304B read with Sections 201/34 of Indian Penal Code, Ghosi Police Station Case No 257 of 2010 was instituted against petitioner and several others including Lailoon Das. It appears that police submitted chargesheet No 43 of 2011 on 25.03.2011 in the matter clearly stating that so far as investigation against the petitioner and Lailoon Das is concerned, it is complete and they have been found prima facie guilty of the offence as alleged and, as such, are being chargesheeted while investigation is being kept open in respect of others. It appears in Column-11 of the chargesheet, only the name of Lailoon Das has been mentioned and not the name of the petitioner though in the substantive part of the chargesheet, petitioner and Lailoon Das both have been shown to have been chargesheeted. Because of this ministerial defect, when this chargesheet was placed before the Court concerned, by order dated 28.03.2011, the Court proceeded to notice that chargesheet had been filed against Lailoon Das and, as such, cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 364, 304B and 201/34 of Indian 2 Penal Code is being taken and the case records have been transferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there being no cognizance as against him, continuance of his detention in the case is per se illegal. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that the plea taken by the petitioner is misconceived. The first misconception is as to the concept of cognizance. It is now well settled that cognizance is the stage when the Court applies its mind to the case for the purposes of proceeding with trial. Cognizance is taken of an offence and not of an offender. The Court having taken cognizance of the offence on bass of chargesheet in which both Lailoon Das and petitioner have been chargesheeted, it would be deemed that the Court is proceeding to try the offence on which the petitioner and Lailoon Das have been chargesheeted. Non- mentioning of name of petitioner is mere irregularity and not illegality which vitiates the order of cognizance as he has already been remanded to judicial custody and has been chargesheeted and cognizance having been taken, his remand or detention in judicial custody is not illegal. The writ petition is, thus, misconceived and is dismissed as such. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court concerned immediately. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh) (Ashwani Kumar Singh)