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

1991 Supreme(Ori) 143

ARIJIT PASAYAT
BISWANATH BHAGAT – Appellant
Versus
SANJAY SABA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.B.Rana, M.M.SAHU, P.RANA, R.Ch.Mohanty, R.K.MOHANTY

PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) TITIONER, the Informant in ) G. R. 1157 of 1988 pending adjudication 1 in the court of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial I Magistrate, Cuttack (in short SDJM),prays for variance of the order dated 1-11-1988 taking -1 cognizance under sections 341/324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC ). According to the petitioner, the materials on record clearly establish existence of offence under section 307, I. P. C. It is submitted that though charge-sheet has been submitted under sections 341/324, I. P. C. , without considering the gravity of the offence committed, the learned SDJM has mechanically taken cognizance under those sections without properly considering materials which would have showed desirability of taking cognizance under section 307, I. P. C.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the informant has very little role to play at the time of taking cognizance, and therefore, the order passed by the learned SDJM does not need any interference.

( 3 ) TAKING cognizance is the threshold act of a judicial proceeding relating to an offence. Cognizance does not involve any formal action and indeed action of any kind but occurs as

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