BISWANATH BHAGAT Vs. SANJAY SABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) titioner, the Informant in ) G.R. 1157 of 1988 pending adjudication 1 in the court of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial I Magistrate, Cuttack (in short SDJM),prays for variance of the order dated 1-11-1988 taking -1 cognizance under sections 341/324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). According to the petitioner, the materials on record clearly establish existence of offence under section 307, I.P.C. It is submitted that though charge-sheet has been submitted under sections 341/324, I.P.C., without considering the gravity of the offence committed, the learned SDJM has mechanically taken cognizance under those sections without properly considering materials which would have showed desirability of taking cognizance under section 307, I.P.C.

(2.) The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the informant has very little role to play at the time of taking cognizance, and therefore, the order passed by the learned SDJM does not need any interference.

(3.) Taking cognizance is the threshold act of a judicial proceeding relating to an offence. Cognizance does not involve any formal action and indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, there fore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. Taking cognizance includes the intention of initiating a judicial proceeding against an offender in respect of an offence or taking steps to see whether there is basis for initiating judicial proceeding or for other purpose. Till the process is issued the accused does not come into the picture at all.