JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. — In the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to an order of cognizance dated 6.1.2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Basudevpur in G.R. Case No.184 of 2003, whereby, cognizance against the petitioner was taken under Sections 488, 427, 506 & 201 I.P.C.

2. The petitioner is a practising advocate of the Bhadrak Bar Association and was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor in Bhadrak District since July 2001. From the pleadings of the case, it appears that one Sk. Barsat Ahamed, Office Peon attached to the Court of J.M.F.C., Basudevpur submitted a report against the petitioner on 27.9.2003 which was forwarded by the learned J.M.F.C. to Basudevpur Police Station, on the basis of which Basudevpur P.S. Case No.128 of 2003 was registered.

3. Sri Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that on a plain reading of the entire F.I.R. and the charge-sheet as well as the evidence collected by the Inves¬tigating Officer, no case is made out against the petitioner to face trial for the offences as noted hereinabove. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the impugned order of cognizance clearly indicates non-application of judicial mind to the facts of the case and the materials produced along with the charge-sheet, he submits that cognizance in the matter has been taken in a mechanical manner.

In support of the contention, learned counsel for the peti¬tioner submits that whereas in the F.I.R. it was alleged that on 25.9.2003 at about 1.00 P.M. when the Peskar of the Court of J.M.F.C., Basudevpur had gone to the toilet and had asked the informant Sk. Barsat Ahamed, Office Peon, to bring out the re¬cords in G.R. Case No.1488 of 1995, at that time the petitioner came and perused the said G.R. Case record and after tearing out one S.R. from the Court records, tried to insert the same in his pocket. It is further alleged that the Clerks raised an objection to the same and took back the S.R. from the hands of the peti¬tioner and when the Bench Clerk (Peskar) of the Court asked the petitioner to come to meet the Magistrate, the petitioner threat¬ened and told him not to shout and left the Court room. It is further stated that during the investigation of the case, the S.R. was seized and left in the zima of the Head Clerk of the J.M.F.C., Basudevpur and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 448, 427, 506 and 201 I.P.C. and thereafter, cognizance was taken in the aforesaid provisions of law. It is further asserted that in the meantime, G.R. Case No.1488 of 1995 from which the S.R. had allegedly been recovered has been disposed of on 19.1.2004 and an order of acquittal has been passed therein.

4. Sri Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that while Section 448 I.P.C. deals with “punishment for house-trespass”, Section 442 I.P.C. defines “house trespass” which applies to, whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwell¬ing or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property.

The term “criminal trespass” has been defined under Section 441 I.P.C. which applies to whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another “with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property.”

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the J.M.F.C. Court room at Basudevpur being admittedly a “public place”, and is accessible by the public and the petitioner being an advocate and Assistant Public Prosecutor, could not be alleged to have committed” house trespass” by entering into the Court room which is a public place. In this respect, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sudarsan Jena v. State of Orissa, 1973 (1) C.W.R. 195.

5. In so far as the offence under Section 427 I.P.C. is concerned which deals with mischief ca