(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the order dated 24-1-2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in case no. 371 of 2009 as well as charge sheet dated 05-12-2008 arising out of case crime no. 2368 of 2008 under sections 498a, 323, 504, 506 I. P. C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station Kotwali Ghazipur District Ghazipur whereby Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.
(2.) HEARD Sri S. K. Dube, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA and perused the record.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the learned Magistrate has not applied its mind in taking cognizance and in routine manner cognizance has been taken. It is further contended that jurisdictional matter is also involved in this case and the learned Magistrate has no power to take cognizance because matter relates to district Farrukhabad and not district Ghazipur. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the revisions in State of Karnataka vs. Pastor P. Raju [2006 (56) ACC 497] and Premkumar and others vs. State of Kerala [2009 (64)ACC 902]. In the case of Pastor P. Raju (supra) the Apex Court has considered the word "cognizance" and it has been held that cognizance means application of judicial mind by the Magistrate in respect of an offence suspected. It has further been held that "cognizance" has not been defined in Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 190 deals how cognizance of the offence will be taken by the Magistrate. For taking any formal action or indeed action of any kind is not required except application of mind by the Magistrate. In case of Premkumar (Supra) Apex court has held that every offence ordinarily be inquired into and tied by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed and if offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another and it is continuing offence then the matter may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.