SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Ker) 374

S.PADMANABHAN
Paulose – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent


Judgment :-

Cognizance, whether it be under S. 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under any other Statute, is only of the offence and not the offender or offenders. Whether on complaint or on police report or upon other information or knowledge, what is required for taking cognizance is only, reception of facts which constitute offence. It can be against known or unknown persons or both as the definition of 'complaint' in S. 2(d), Cr.P.C. indicates. All the offenders or their identities may not be before court when cognizance is taken. In such cases court has not only the right but also the duty to find out the persons involved. That is one of the purposes of compliance of S. 200 or if necessary 202 and the power to order investigation under Sections 156(3), 202(1) or further investigation under S. 173(3). Even before framing charge the court can summon an offender as an additional accused if it is satisfied of a prima facie case against him from the records. Section 319, Cr.P.C. is not the sole repository of the power of court in the respect. Section 319 operates only in a narrow field where trial has proceeded or enquiry commenced. Section 319 is designed to meet the spe









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top