LAWS(APH)-1988-10-15

VARLA KA KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF A P

Decided On October 04, 1988
VARLA KA KRISHNA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed Crl. M.P. Nos. 1360, 1369, 1409 and 1511 of 1988 in Crime No 46/88 of Chilakaluripet Police Station under Sec. 167 (2) Cr. PC to release them on bail on the ground that the statutory period of 90 days of their judicial custody expired by the time the charge-sheet is filed into court, as the petitioners are ready to produce sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. The case of the petitioners is that the police report was filed before the Magistrate on 18-7-1988 at 12-20 p.m. but the court did not take cognizance of the case set out in the charge-sheet and it was returned. The charge-sheet was again filed on 1-8-1988 which was also returned for compliance of omissions and the same was filed on 17-8-1988 and the court took cognizance of the same. The contention of the State was that the police report was filed on 18-7-1988 at 12.20 p.m. setting out the offences alleging against the accused. The court took cognizance of the offence set out in the charge-sheet against the accused on 20-7-1988, but returned the charge-sheet to supply some omissions that were found in the charge-sheet. Since the court applied its mind judiciously to the police report, it is deemed that the court has taken cognizance of the offences against the accused. The Magistrate held that the court has taken cognizance of the offence set out in the charge-sheet already Filed on 18-7-1988, but it was returned to comply with some omissions that were found by the court by applying its judicial mind and the petitions for the release of the petitioners under Sec. 167 (2) Cr. P.C.'are not maintainable. Against that order, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) The accused were produced before the Magistrate on the following dates and the 90 days period had expired as detailed below: Produced on Period of 90 days A-11 22-4-88 20-7-88 A- 7 27-4-88 26-7-88 A-10 27-4-88 26-7-88 A-8 3-5-88 31-7-88 A-13 3-5-88 31-7-88 A-15 3-5-88 31-7-88 A- 1 18-5-88 15-8-88 A- 6 18-5-88 15-8-88 Proviso (a) to Sec. 167 (2) Cr. PC. reads as under: "(a) The Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days: if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding:-- (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years: (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence and on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter' The statutory period of remand under Sec. 167 (2) Cr. PC is only 90 days,

(3.) The point involved in this petition exactly is as to on what date the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence Taking cognizance of the case will indicate and include the intention of initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of the offence or taking steps to see whether there is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings or for other purposes. Taking cognizance of an offence is a judicial act, not involving any formal action of any kind and it occurs as soon as the Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. The Magistrate may have jurisdiction to try the case, but taking of an offence is something quite different from jurisdiction to deal with a case.