Cognizance of an offence is taken when the Magistrate applies his mind to the contents of the complaint and proceeds to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

N. C. SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition by Rampal and IS others for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the Judicial Magistrate. Jaipur District and the initiation of which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge-Jaipur District, Jaipur on filing of revision petition No. 11/1987 by the petitioners.

( 2 ) RAM Gopal, non-petitioner No. 2 filed a private criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, District Jaipur on February 16 1984, with respect to an ilicident alleged to have taken place on October 25. 1983, It was alleged in the complaint that non petitioner No. 2 and his two companions were be laboured by the petitioners it appears that non-petitioner No. 2 has also lodged a First Information Report at the Police Station. The police gave a final report on April 20, 1984. According to the petitioners, the Judicial Magistrate. Jaipur District took cognizance of the offences under Sees. 147, 313, 324, 149 447. IPC on November 13. 1986. This, according to the petitioners was barred by limitation under Section 468 (2) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that on March 20, 1985, the Judicial Magistrate had ordered for the recording of evidence under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and. for that purpose, the case, was fixed on May. 1985 and on September 2, 1986. There were intervening dates also on which the Presiding Officer was not present. Ultimately, the impugned order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate on November 13,1986. in this order the Judicial Magistrate mentioned that the file was perused and there were sufficient grounds for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences mentioned in the order. He further passed an order for issuance of processes as against the petitioners.

( 4 ) THE crucial quest on for determination in this case is that as to when a Magistrate can he said to have taken cognizance of an offence on a private criminal complaint. In other words, the question is whether the Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance on March 20, 1985 when he passed an order under Section 200, Cr. P. C. to examine, upon oath, the complainant and other witnesses.

( 5 ) IT is well settled that cognizance is taken when the Magistrate bas applied his mind. Cognizance takes place at a point of time when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. Taking of cognizance means cognizance of an offence and not of an offender Once the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, it is his duty, to find out who the offenders really are and once be comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. In Nirmaljit Singh Boon v. State of West Bengal1, it was observed that before the Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence under Section 190 (i) (b) of the Code, be must have not only applied his mind to the contents of the complaint before him but must have done so for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200 and the provisions following that section. But when the Magistrate has applied his mind only for ordering investigation, under Section 156 (3) of the Code or issuing a warrant for the purpose of investigation, he cannot be and to have taken cognizance of an offence. In B. S. Bains v. State2 it was observed that a Magistrate who on receipt of a complaint orders an investigation under Section 156 (3) and receives a police report under Section 173, he may do one of the three things (1) he may drop action holding that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding ; (2) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (i) (b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; and (3) he may take cognizance under Section 190 (I) (a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses. Reference may also be made to the decisions in Darshan Singh v. State o