The main legal point established is that detailed orders are not required at the stage of summoning, and the summoning of an accused only initiates a proceeding.

SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J.-Since common question of fuel and law are involved in both petitions, the same are being decided by• a common judgment and order.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. The petitioner of Criminal Misc.

Case No. 1191 of 2011 (under section 482 Cr.P.C.) has challenged the summoning order dated 10.6.2010 issued by the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheri in Case No. 163 of 2010, mainly on the ground that the same is without application of mind, therefore it is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioners of Criminal Misc. Case No. 1205 of 2011 (under section 482 Cr.P.C) has also challenged the order dated 6.12.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao in Misc. Crimina) Case No. 11201 of 2010.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Magistrate was obliged to record his satisfaction for taking cognizance in the matter, but it has not been done so far. The summoning order dated 10.6.2010 passed by the Court below is reproduced hereinunder -

vkt vkjksi&i= izkIr gqvkA vkjksi&i= esa vafdr vijk/k dk iw.kZ vk/kkj i;kZIr gS vfHk;qDr us tekur ugha djk;h gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls U;k;ky; esa vkjksi&i= nkf[ky gksus rFkk mldh fxjrkjh LFkfxr FkhA voyksfdr FkhA

vkns'k

^^eqdnek ntZ jft- gks lEeu fnukad 13-7-2010 ds fy, tkjh gksA udysa cuok;h tk;saA

g-v-

¼lh-ts-,e-½**

5. Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is tilled as "Conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings". Under this Chapter section 190 pertains to "Cognizance of offences by Magistrates".

Since the provision of this section is relevant for consideration to the present case, it is extracted below:

"190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.-(l) 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."

6. The same controversy has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports v. Roshan Lal Agarwal and others. In this case one of the question for consideration was that the Presiding Officer of the Special Court had not applied his judicial mind to the complaint before taking cognizance of offence. In this case the learned Magistrate had passed the following order:

"Cognizance taken, Register the case.

Issue summons to the accused."

7. The order of the learned Magistrate was challenged before the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition with the observation that the order passed by the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence does not show that the learned Magistrate had even refused the complaint or that he had applied his judicial mind before taking of the cognizance.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the issue in the following manner:

"In' determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not, whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons."

9. This question was considered recently in U.P; Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and others, after noticing the law laid down in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State