Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
Kannan @ Sivachandren & Others - Appellant
Vs.
The State, Represented by its The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Salem District & Another - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 5048 of 2023 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 3178 & 3179 of 2023
Decided On : 05-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Sheik Ismail, Adv.
For the Respondents: A. Gopinath Govt. Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the question of taking cognizance becomes academic when the trial has advanced to a stage where the accused have participated in the proceedings after being put on notice of the offences/allegations leveled in the final report.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Additional Final Report - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482, 173(8) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120(B), 468, 471, 419, 420 - TNPID Act - Section 5 - Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Others, State of W.B Vs. Mohammed Khalid, Raghubans Dubey Vs. State of Bihar, Pravin Chandra Mody Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh - The court discussed the requirement of taking cognizance of the supplementary report, the meaning of 'cognizance' under Section 190 of the Code, and the summoning of additional accused as part of the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence. The court emphasized that the question of fresh cognizance and fresh trial did not arise when the accused had participated in the trial after being put on notice of the offences/allegations leveled in the final report.
Fact of the Case:
The petition sought to quash the additional final report in a criminal case on the grounds that the court proceeded without taking cognizance of the supplementary report and that witnesses gave contradictory versions regarding settlement of dues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Court below had taken cognizance of the supplementary report and had proceeded with the trial, making the question of cognizance academic. The court also held that the issue of witnesses giving contradictory versions was a matter for the trial court to decide and not a ground for quashing the proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the taking of cognizance of the supplementary report and the contradictory versions given by witnesses regarding settlement of dues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the question of cognizance became academic due to the advanced stage of the trial and that the issue of contradictory witness versions was a matter for the trial court to decide.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was disposed of, and the court left it open to the Court below to consider the case on its own merits and in accordance with the law, including the defense taken by the accused persons.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the additional final report dated 02.06.2016 in C.C.No.8 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore for offences under Sections 120(B), 468, 471, 419 and 420 of IPC and under Section 5 of TNPID Act r/w 120(B) of IPC.
1. The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the additional final report/supplementary report dated 02.06.2016 filed in C.C.No.8 of 2015 before the Court below on the ground that the Court below has proceeded further with the case even without taking cognizance of the supplementary report.
2. When the matter came up for hearing on 07.03.2023, this Court passed the following order: "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that originally final report was filed against three accused Viz., A1/Promox Emu Farms (p) Ltd., A2/V.Muthukumar and A3/Kannan. Then prosecution filed a petition under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation. After further investigation, additional final report was filed against four more accused. The learned Special Judge for TNPID Act, 1997 cases, Coimbatore, without taking cognizance of the offence against the additional accused Viz., A4/Kailasam, A5/Suresh Gandhi, A6/Kumar @ Ramkumar and A7/Ajay @ Harikrishnan, proceeded to furnish copies to the accused, framed charges and examined the witnesses. Now, this quash petition is filed challenging the proceedings conducted, without taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner.
3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that report may be called for from the concerned Judge as to whether cognizance of the offence against the additional accused had been taken or not.
4. Therefore, call for report from the learned Special Judge for TNPID Act, 1997 cases, Coimbatore as to whether the cognizance of the offence against the additional accused Viz., A4/Kailasam, A5/Suresh Gandhi, A6/Kumar @ Ramkumar and A7/Ajay @ Harikrishnan was taken, if so, when the cognizance was taken, by return of post along with a copy of the order taking cognizance. 5.
5. Post the matter after two weeks."
3. Pursuant to the above order, a report has been received from the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore dated 21.03.2023 and for proper appreciation, the report is extracted hereunder:
“I humbly submit that the Final Report, which was filed on 07.03.2015 against A1 to A3, was taken on file on 13.03.2015 and the Additional Final Report was filed on 02.06.2016, through which, A4 to A7 were added as accused, but the aforesaid final report, additional final report and notes paper are silent in respect of cognizance taken on additional final report and A4 to A7.
I further submit that even though there was no endorsement to that effect, “Cognizance is taken of an offence and not of an offenders/A4 to A7” as held by our Hon'ble Apex Court in Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Others on 11 February, 2015 and State of W.B Vs. Mohammed Khalid on 24 November, 1994 that Section 190 of the Code talks of cognizance of offences by Magistrates. This expression has not been defined in the Code. In its broad and literal sense, it means taking notice of an offence. This would include the intention of initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of that offence or taking steps to see whether there is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings or for other purposes. The word 'cognizance' indicates the point when a Magistrate or a Judge first takes judicial notice of the offence. It is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons. No particular form is necessary.
The summoning of the additional accused is part of the
