Hon'ble AHLUWALIA, J.—The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No. 60/2005 registered at Police Station Regional Forest Officer, Digota, Ajabgarh, Distt. Alwar for the offences under Section 9, 39, 48-A, 49-A, 49-B, 50 and 51 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is in custody since 21st July, 2013.

3. Shri Pankaj Gupta, appearing for the petitioner has firstly submitted that a complaint was filed against the co-accused of the petitioner in the year, 2005. Subsequently, a supplementary complaint was filed against the petitioner on 12th September, 2013.

4- Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to file a supplementary complaint.

5. In support of this reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner upon a judgment rendered in a case of Ajit Narain Haksar and others vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Legal), Bangalore by a Single Judge of Karnataka High Court reported in 2003 Volume 1 Cri. CC page 139. A further reliance has been placed upon Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali reported in 2013 Volume 5 SCC 765.

6. This Court shall deal with first argument raised by counsel for the petitioner in the present case. After fining of the supplementary complaint, the trial Court has taken cognizance of offences against the petitioner.

7. It is necessary to reproduce Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-

"190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try."

8. Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure put no fetters or embargo on the powers of the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. The Court can take cognizance of the offence upon on his own knowledge in case offence has been committed. The Court is not bound by the nomenclature given to the information. The information given if is called second complaint or a supplementary complaint shall not preclude the Court to treat it as an application, stating a fact, brought to the notice or knowledge of the Court that accused had committed an offence. The Court shall not take cognizance of that offence, if it is barred by way of limitation.

9. In the case of Vinay Tyagi (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the powers of the Magistrate under Section 190 Cr.P.C. had observed as under:-

"The settled principles of criminal jurisprudence would support such approach, particularly when in terms of Section 190 of the Code, the Magistrate is the competent authority to take cognizance of an offence. It is the Magistrate who has to decide whether on the basis of the record and documents produced, an offence is made out or not, and if made out, what course of law should be adopted in relation to committal of the case to the court of competent jurisdiction or to proceed with the trial himself. In other words, it is the judicial satisfied with reference to the record and the documents placed before him by the investigating agency, in coming to the appropriate conclusion in consonance with the principles of law."

10. Similarly in the case of Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in AIR 2013 SC 3018, the Apex Court has held that the Magistrate is not bound by the reports submitted under Section 173 (3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document