IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2175 of 2009 ANAND KUMAR SINHA & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 16.4.2010 Heard Shri Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.S. Choudhary, learned APP for the state. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 25.1.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Forest Case No. 06 of 2007 (Tr. No. 1077 of 2008). The court does not want to enter into the factual details of the matter nor does it want to enter into the merit of the contention. The court has not even allowed learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners to raise any point simply for the reason that the order of cognizance appears passed without application of mind. The order is a printed form with vacant spaces left in it so as to be filled up with some necessary informations, like, from whom the complaint petition has been received, what were the offences which were indicated in that petition of complaint and who was the accused against whom the cognizance was taken and, of course, the sections of the offence. Even the word ‘cognizance’ has been written in the vacant space. Besides, space for writing the name of the magistrate who was to try the offence, has also been left along with that for the date on which the accused was to appear. It has not been mentioned any where in the printed form that the magistrate had perused the report or had perused the complaint petition and on such perusal 2 he had found certain offences made out, least to say, what was the material constituting the offence. It has been pointed out time and again by the pronouncements of the courts that the authorities who are ordained to pass judicial orders or quasi-judicial orders are to assign reasons besides indicating sufficient material so as to indicate that the judicial mind has been applied to the facts of the case. It is out and out an order which was passed mechanically by the C.J.M., Gaya without applying his judicial mind to the facts of the case. The court holds an opinion that the Chief Judicial Magistrate who was passing the order impugned on 25.1.2007 was probably not even looking to the complaint petition and was merely putting his initial signature over the three printed letters C.J.M. after finding that necessary details have been filled up in the printed form. The order dated 25.1.2007 is hereby quashed. However, the matter is remitted back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya for applying his mind to the facts of the case and passing an order afresh. The Chief Judicial Magistrate must also consider the provisions of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and then proceed to pass the necessary orders. If the Chief Judicial Magistrate has any reason to condone the delay, then he must give a notice to the accused before hand so that they are also heard. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)