KANNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the additional final report / supplementary report dtd. 2/6/2016 filed in C.C.No.8 of 2015 before the Court below on the ground that the Court below has proceeded further with the case even without taking cognizance of the supplementary report.

(2.) When the matter came up for hearing on 7/3/2023, this Court passed the following order: "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Pursuant to the above order, a report has been received from the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore dtd. 21/3/2023 and for proper appreciation, the report is extracted hereunder: "I humbly submit that the Final Report, which was filed on 7/3/2015 against A1 to A3, was taken on file on 13/3/2015 and the Additional Final Report was filed on 2/6/2016, through which, A4 to A7 were added as accused, but the aforesaid final report, additional final report and notes paper are silent in respect of cognizance taken on additional final report and A4 to A7. I further submit that even though there was no endorsement to that effect,"Cognizance is taken of an offence and not of an offenders/A4 to A7" as held by our Hon'ble Apex Court in Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Others on 11/2/2015 and State of W.B Vs. Mohammed Khalid on 24/11/1994 that Sec. 190 of the Code talks of cognizance of offences by Magistrates. This expression has not been defined in the Code. In its broad and literal sense, it means taking notice of an offence. This would include the intention of initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of that offence or taking steps to see whether there is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings or for other purposes. The word 'cognizance' indicates the point when a Magistrate or a Judge first takes judicial notice of the offence. It is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons. No particular form is necessary. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghubans Dubey Vs. State of Bihar (1967 AIR SC 1167) and Pravin Chandra Mody Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ([1965] 1 S.C.R. 269). I submit that accordingly, summons were issued; A4 to A7 appeared; on 14/12/2016, charges were framed against the accused A1 to A7; they denied the charges; the prosecution evidence was commenced on 1/3/2017 and closed on 22/4/2022 with Pw58; and it was posted for defence evidence from 11/5/2022; as no defence evidence, it was closed and posted for arguments on 22/6/2022; and due to filing of several miscellaneous applications, it has been been posted for arguments till 23/1/2023. I submit that it is the specific case of the accused that they received deposits, but repaid with interest during trial and obtained necessary receipts, which was admitted by the depositors during cross examination. The said facts would prove that the cognizance of an offence was taken and the accused were put on notice of the offences/allegation leveled in the final report and they participated in trial. Now, the only question before this Court is that whether the 47 depositors received full settlement or again cheated by the accused? I further submit that the accused cheated 50 victims to the tune of Rs.1,06,86,000.00. In such a situation, I submit that the question of fresh cognizance and fresh trial does not arise."