RAM PAT AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of four Criminal Revisions (Nos. 167 -D to 170 -D of 1961) by Ram Pat and Risal Singh which have arisen in the following circumstances. Four different persons who were referred to as complainants were challenged in a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but were acquitted. They brought four separate complaints against the two petitioners alleging inter alia that they had entered into a conspiracy along with two others -Balbir Singh, Who has not come up in revision, and Tek Chand, who died during the pendency of these proceedings, -to falsely implicate the complainants. The petitioners and Tek Chand are said to have instigated Balbir Singh to involve the complainants also in the case mentioned above in order to defame them Prayer was made that the accused be proceeded against under section 500 read with section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. The complaints were dealt with by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate who, after recording the statement of the complainants in each case, transferred the ceases to the Court of Thaker Bhagwan Das, an Honorary Magistrate of the 1st Class, who, after recording the preliminary evidence, found that a prima facie case was made out only under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons accordingly. Objection was taken before him that the complaint being one of criminal conspiracy with the object of committing an offence which was non -cognizable, sanction of the State Government was necessary under sub -section (2) of section 196 -A of the Criminal Procedure Code. That sanction not being there, it was urged that no cognizance of the complaint could be taken. This, however, was rejected by the Magistrate and also by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision and the main ground stated was that a Magistrate cannot be said to have taken cognizance of an offence unless he applies his mind to the facts disclosed in the complaint and that in as much as summons were issued only under section 500, cognizance was taken only of that offence.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners before me vehemently urged that cognizance must be deemed to have been taken by the learned Magistrate as soon as he proceeds to examine the complainant under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. For this, he mainly relies on the wording of the section which runs as follows: -

(3.) These observations were again referred to in Narayandas Bhagwandas v. State of West Bengal : A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1118, 1123 and it was observed that issuing of a search warrant for the purpose of investigation or of a warrant of arrest for that purpose cannot by themselves be regarded as acts by which cognizance was taken of an offence. Same matter arose in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Subbaiah : A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1241. That was a case where conspiracy to commit cognizable and non -cognizable offence was alleged. The objection was that the conspiracy to commit offences punishable under sections 466 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which were non -cognizable, could not be inquired into by the special Judge without the sanction of the State Government under section 196 -A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The matter was, however, left open and it was observed as under: -