LAWS(KER)-2002-9-30

K VENUGOPALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On September 05, 2002
K.VENUGOPALAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The ground urged in the Crl. M.C. for quashing Annexure A final report filed by the police after investigation alleging commission of an offence punishable under S.323 I.P.C. by the petitioner (the offence is alleged to have been committed on 6th September 1993) invoking the powers of this Court under S.482 Cr. P.C. is that the offence alleged to have been committed was committed as early as on 6th September 1993 and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate after the expiry of the period of limitation provided under S.468 (2) (b) Cr. P.C. for taking cognizance i.e. cognizance was taken three years after the alleged commission of the offence. Learned Counsel also contended that in view of the law laid down by the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tara Dutt AIR 2000 S.C. 297 and the decision of this Court in M/s ECTYO Coconut Oils Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala ILR 2002 (1) Ker. 273 , the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the offence and the ground of attack is that no speaking order has been passed by him condoning the delay. Taking cognizance of the offence has been assailed on the further ground of non giving of an opportunity to the accused to be heard before taking cognizance of the offence.

(3.) I shall first consider the meaning of the expression 'taking cognizance' and then decide the question when cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate of the offence under S.323 I.P.C. alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The question as to what is meant by taking cognizance is no longer res integra. 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 [Sec R.R. Chari v. State of Uttar Prdesh AIR 1951 SC 207 ]. Supreme Court endorsed the observation made by Justice Das Gupta in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee AIR 1950 Cal. 437 , which read thus: