Taking cognizance of an offence is a judicial act, and the Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to the materials before him, including the charge sheet, documents, and statements under Section 173(5) Cr.P.C.

A.B.Mukherjee, J.: Seven revisional applications being application No. 829/96 to 835/96(both inclusive) arising out of G.R. cases being 191/94, 320/93, 322/93, 324/93, 399/94, 400/94 and 1007/94 respectively, pending before the Ld.' S.D.J.M., Chandernagar have been instituted under s. 482 Cr.P.C. with a view to quash the said proceedings.

1. Since the parties involved the facts as also the principles of law are exactly the same, all the revisional applications have been heard together and this judgement shall govern all the revisional applications.

2. For the purpose of disposing of the revisional applications, the facts constituting the offence need not be stated in details since in course of the hearing of the revisional application the petitioner relied on only one ground, namely, ground no.2, dealing with the taking of cognizance by the Ld. Magistrate and reply given by the Ld. PP was also confined to that aspect alone.

3. In short the case is that the petitioner in all the revisional applications is the Chairman of three Companies, namely, The Samnuggur Jute Factory, The Victoria Jute Company and The Angus Company Limited, owing to the recession of the Jute Industry the Companies were running at heavy loss since 1982. The Companies were being managed by Mehtas. There /were arrears of provident Fund, Employees State Insurance, Jute Tax, Sales Tax and other statutory dues. They were also heavily indebted to the financial institutions. In fact, the Companies were sick and were facing closure. There was also labour unrest and ultimately at times there was also lock-outs in the Companies. There was also order of winding up at the instance of creditors which was however stayed on appeals preferred by Unions of Workers.

4. On 27.9.88 the petitioner co-opted as Non-Executive Chairman of the Company pursuant to entering into Memoranda of Understanding for acquisition of the majority of Indian shares of the Companies after requisite permission was granted by Reserve Bank of India on 13.5.89 and 13.6.89. But due to various litigation and restraint orders of Court, the petitioner could not acquire the shares till 1991 when he succeeded to acquire some of the shares held by Bhalotia group. Regarding the Mehta group shares, the same could not be acquired by the petitioner yet the petitioner was humiliated by Foreign Exchange officials and even put under arrest but he was discharged by the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by order dated 4.3.92 till he was being threatened by top officials of the FERA Administration. In February, 1994, petitioner's representative Mr. Tom Vigors, a British national, was whisked by Enforcement officials after he left Writers' Building, Calcutta attending a meeting convened by the Hon'ble Labour Minister of the West Bengal Government due to a mistaken identity when he was confused with the present petitioner. The effect of the petitioner to acquire Indian shares with a view to re-juvinate the Companies proved ineffective due to various litigations and he could stay in India only for very few days in between 1992 and 1994. The petitioner being Non-Executive Chairman was never in charge of or responsible to the Company or its subsidiaries in the conduct of day to day business. He was not a signatory to any of the bank accounts of the Company in India. He has not received any fees or expenses for attending the Board Meetings. The Company and subsidiaries are managed by managing/Executive Director and other managerial team who are responsible for the conduct of day to day business.

5. The petitioner came to know from the B.B.C. London in September, 1995 that several cases have been filed against him in India for alleged default of Provident Fund dues and warrant issued by Courts to be executed anywhere in the world with the help of Interpol were pending. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the said criminal cases detained earlier on various grounds.

6. It is alleged that taking of cognizanc