CHANDRA PRASAD PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the absence of the compliance of the provision under section 195 (1) of the Cr. P.C. cognizance of the offence under section 186 of the I.P.C. could not have been taken. This is a mandate and has been spelt out time and again in the judicial pronouncements. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 812, to substantiate his submission that on more than one occasions the words 'no Court shall take cognizance' have been interpreted to be an absolute bar against the Court taking siesin of the case except in the manner provided by the section.

(2.) COUNSEL for the State has admitted that although a charge-sheet had been filed in this case and cognizance of the offences under sections 186/332/353 of the I.P.C. and 59 of the D.M.R.C. Act had been taken on the challan yet a complaint under section 195 of the Cr. P.C. is also on record. Cognizance of the offence had admittedly not been taken on this complaint. The cognizance had been taken on the charge-sheet which had been filed.

(3.) WITH these directions, this petition is disposed of. Petition Disposed Of.