The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'taking cognizance' and its application in the context of issuing process against the accused.

( 1 ) IN Cr. R. P. No. 705/82 the Petitioners, who are accused in C. C. No. 616 of 1982 on the file of the Munsiff and J. M. F. C. , Savanur, are challenging the order dated 15-9-82 of that Court issuing summons for their appearance in the Court,

( 2 ) IN Cr. R. P. No. 706/82 the Petitioners, who are accused in C. C. No. 230 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Jamkhandi, are similarly challenging the order dated 31-7-1982 of that court issuing summons to them to appear before that Court.

( 3 ) SINCE common questions of law and facts are involved in these Petitions they were clubbed and heard together.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned State Public Prosecutor, who was requested to offer his views on behalf of the State, were heard in the matter.

( 5 ) THE main contention of the Petitioners in these two cases is that in the matter of taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process against them (the Petitioners) the Magistrates had not followed the procedure laid down in the relevant provisions contained in Chapter XV of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code ).

( 6 ) THE order challenged in Cr. R. P. No. 705/82 reads as follows :

"15-9-1982: Complainant Sri A. P. P. present for statement of complainant, complainant is present. His sworn statement is recorded under Section 200 Cr. P. C. From the facts sworn by the complainant offence under Sections 323, 504, 506. P. C. are made out against them. Cognizance is taken. Register case in Register No.. Summon on accused to appear on 25-9-1982. Sd/ munsiff and JMFC, savanur. "

( 7 ) THE order impugned in Cr. R. P. No. 756/82 reads thus :

"31-7-1982. Called on today. Complainant by N. S. H. for sworn statement. Complainant present. Her sworn statement is recorded. Perused the complaint and also the sworn statement of the complainant. At this stage she has made out a prima facie case against all the accused. Registered the case C. C. register and issue summons to accused and they are directed to appear on 2-9-1982. Sd/- A. S. Patil, additional J. M. F. C. Jamkhand. 31-7-82. "

( 8 ) THE complaint in the first case (Cr. R. P. 705/82) is that the Court below had taken cognizance subsequent to the recording of the sworn statement of the complainant, and, on the other hand, he should have proceeded to examine, on oath, the complainant only after taking cognizance and that not having been done the entire proceeding is vitiated. The main attack of the Petitioners in cr. R. P. 706/82 is that the Magistrate had proceeded to issue summons without taking cognizance of the offence at all and the fact of his having taken cognizance not having been mentioned at all in the order the inference is that he has not taken cognizance.

( 9 ) IN support of their contentions learned Counsel for the Petitioners place reliance on a few decisions which will be referred to later, if necessary.

( 10 ) ON the other hand, according to the learned State Public Prosecutor a Magistrate dealing with a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code can be said to have taken cognizance of the offence if applying his judicial mind he had taken steps to proceed in the matter and it was not necessary for him to say, at any stage, that he had taken cognizance. He submitted that the very fact that the Courts below in these cases had proceeded to examine, upon oath, the complainants clearly shows of they having taken cognizance of the complaints. He also brought to my notice some decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter.

( 11 ) THE only question that arises for consideration in these two revisions is, as to whether, in the matter of issuing process to the accused, the Courts below have committed any error of law or procedure ?

( 12 ) CHAPTER XIV of the Code, which contains Sections 190 to 199 of the Code, lays down the "conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings" before Magistrates. Section 190 (1) (a) says that ". . . any Magistrate. . . may tak