A Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence of which cognizance has already been taken by another Magistrate. The question is one of propriety and not jurisdiction. A Magistrate is not required to examine all the witnesses before taking cognizance of an offence.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 202(2) - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - PROPRIETY OF TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE ALREADY TAKEN COGNIZANCE BY ANOTHER MAGISTRATE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 202(2) - SCOPE OF INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 202 - MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE.
Fact of the Case:

A complaint was filed before the Additional Munsif-Magistrate of Chirala against 34 persons, including 13 against whom the police had filed a charge-sheet before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate. The Additional Munsif-Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the 13 persons mentioned in the police charge-sheet and against 11 others. The petitioners, who were among the 11 persons against whom cognizance was taken by the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that in the absence of an express statutory prohibition, it cannot be said that a Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence of which cognizance has already been taken by another Court. The question is one of propriety and not jurisdiction. The Court also held that the Magistrate was not required to examine all the witnesses before taking cognizance of the offence, and that the accused does not enter the picture at that stage.
Issues: 1. Whether a Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence of which cognizance has already been taken by another Magistrate? 2. Whether a Magistrate is required to examine all the witnesses before taking cognizance of an offence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that in the absence of an express statutory prohibition, it cannot be said that a Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence of which cognizance has already been taken by another Court. The question is one of propriety and not jurisdiction. 2. The Court held that the Magistrate was not required to examine all the witnesses before taking cognizance of the offence, and that the accused does not enter the picture at that stage.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both the revision petitions.

( 1 ) ON 2nd January, 1975, Dr. Krishna Rao of Hyderabad, married kamala Devi at Swarana, the place of kamala Devi s parents. They came to hyderabad on 3rd January, 1975 and went back to Swarana on 5th January, 1975 for celebration of the "nuptial" ceremony. On. the morning of 6th january, 1975 the body of Dr. Krishna rao was found in the Kommanur Canal. It was suspected that Dr. Krishna Rao had been murdered by poisoning as he discovered that his bride was already pregnant by some one. There was investigation by the Crime Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department and a chargesheet was laid against 13 persons on 30th June, 1975 before the judicial Second Class Magistrate, Chirala. The charge-sheet was in respect of the offences of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, causing disappearance of evidence and fabrication of false evidence and conspiracy to cause disappearance of evidence and to fabricate false evidence. It is worth mentioning here that apart from Kamala Devi, her parents and relatives, two police officers were also named as accused in the charge- sheet filed by the Crime Branch of the c. I. D. Late Dr. Krishna Rao s father, sri T. V. Sarma, an advocate was dissatisfied with the police charge-sheet. Therefore, he filed a complaint before the additional Munsif-Magistrate of Chirala against 34 persons including the 13 against whom the police had filed a charge-sheet before the Judicial Second class Magistrate. The Additional Munsif- magistrate, examined the complainant on oath. He also examined some other witnesses produced by the complainant. Finally he took cognizance of the case against the 13 persons mentioned in the police charge-sheet and against the persons shown, as A-5 to A-8, A-11, A-12, a-13, A-23, A-24 and A-25 in the complaint. He dismissed the complaint against A-9, A-14, A-26, A-27 and a-32 to A-34 under section 203,criminal procedure Code. He refused to take cognizance of the case against A-28 to a-31 on the ground that the sanction of the Government had not been obtained. A-11, A-12, A-13, A-23 and A-24 have filed Crl. R. C. No. 646 of 1975 and A-5 to A-8 have filed Crl. R. C. No. 655 of 1975 against the order of the learned additional Munsif-Magistrate taking cognizance of the case against them.

( 2 ) SRI E. Ayyapu Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Judicial Second Class Magistrate of chirla, having already taken cognizance of the case, the Additional Munsif- magistrate had no jurisdiction, to take cognizance of the same case. He also argued that the complainant did not produce all his witnesses before the Magistrate and examine them on oath as required by the proviso to section 202 (2) and therefore, the proceeding before the magistrate was vitiated. He further argued that no case was made out against the petitioners and, therefore, the magistrate should rot have issued process to them. Sri T. V. Sarma, the complainant, appeared in person and raised a preliminary objection that the provisions of section 397 (2) were a bar to the exercise of any revisional powers and that, in the face of the express bar under section 397 (2), the inherent powers of the High Court could not also be invoked.

( 3 ) THERE appears to be considerable force in the preliminary objection of sri T. V. Sarma. Section 397 (2)1 bans exercise of revisional powers in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. The object of section 397 (2) is to prevent interference by revisional Courts with the smooth and even progress of enquiries, trials and other proceedings before inferior Courts. Under the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, not only was there no such limitation on the powers of the revisional courts, sections 435 and 438 expressly provided for the suspension of the orders of inferior Courts by the revisional Courts pending the examination of the record by the revisional Courts. The new code has made a clear departure from the old Code and has prohibi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1975 Supreme(AP) 168

Andhra Pradesh High CourtJudges : CHENNAKESAVA REDDYBudarajn Seshagiri Rao - AppellantVersusT.V.Sarma - RespondentDecided On : 09-16-75

A Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence of which cognizance has already been taken by another Magistrate. The question is one of propriety and not jurisdiction. A Magistrate is not required to examine all the witnesses before taking cognizance of an offence.

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHENNAKESAVA REDDY
Budarajn Seshagiri Rao - Appellant
Versus
T.V.Sarma - Respondent
Decided On : 09-16-75