The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of an offence based on information received, the failure to respond to the court's queries does not justify the cognizance of the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

1. Heard Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.07.2010 passed in Criminal Revision No. 291 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Purnea, whereby the criminal revision of the petitioner has been dismissed thus upholding the order dated 16.06.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Miscellaneous Petition No. 632 of 2007 (C-II 116/2007), whereby the learned Magistrate while treating an application filed for release of the vehicle seized by the petitioner as a complaint, has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as the District Transport Officer, Purnea. During the course of vehicle checking a truck bearing Registration No. HR 55C/1330 was found operating without valid documents. Neither the driver of the truck Atish Kumar nor the person accompanying him, namely, Sanjay Jha could produce the documents relatable to the vehicle viz. the registration book, the insurance papers, the road permit, fitness certificate etc. In the circumstances, the petitioner deputed for checking the vehicle under the orders of the competent authorities, seized the truck and a seizure list was prepared and the truck was kept within the Maranga Police Station, District-Purnea. Subsequently, the driver of the truck and the person accompanying him Sanjay Jha produced the documents, the examination of which transpired that the certificate of fitness as well as the insurance stood expired. In the circumstances, the petitioner corresponded with the Regional Transport Authority of Haryana for verification of the genuineness of the papers produced by the aforesaid persons. Subsequently, the concerned Transport Authority at Gurgaon, Haryana confirmed that the documents had been issued from his office but since the truck was found to have violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, hence information was sent through the Police to the vehicle owner to get the vehicle released upon payment of fine but he did not turn up. Subsequently, a petition was filed by the said Sanjay Jha in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea giving rise to Miscellaneous Petition No. 632 of 2007, for release of the truck bearing Registration No. HR 55C/1330. A report was called for from the petitioner, holding the office of the District Transport Officer, Purnea explaining the circumstances under which the truck had been seized. It so appears from the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that no report was submitted by the petitioner despite several reminders being issued by the Court and in absence whereof the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate exercising powers under Section 190(1) (c ) registered Complaint Case No. C-II 116 of 2007 and took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. \

4. The petitioner questioned the said order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 16.06.2007 by filing Criminal Revision No. 291 of 2007 and which stood rejected by order dated 23.07.2010, inter alia, on grounds that the applicant of the Miscellaneous Petition No. 632 of 2007, namely, Sanjay Jha had not been arrayed as opposite party in the criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has a very short submission to be made. He submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court have committed a serious infirmity in treating the petition filed for release of the vehicle as a complaint case and in proceeding pursuant thereto by recording cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner even in absence of there being