Hon’ble Virendra Vikram Singh, J.—As both the two revisions mentioned above have been filed against the same order, they are being decided by the present common judgment.

By the impugned order, the learned ACJM-I, Shahjahanpur has taken cognizance of the offence and has issued summons against the present two revisionists and another to face trial.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.5.2008 respondent-Manoj Kumar Tomar, Food Inspector of district Shahjahanpur seized bottles of Non Alcoholic Carbonated Water prepared by M/S Priya Drinks, revisionist, from the shop of Rafi Mohammad, co-accused. These bottles were duly sealed and were sent to the public analyst. By his report dated 5.7.2008, the sample was found to be adulterated. The other revisionist M/S V.K.Traders is the stockist and the wholesaler of the drinks in question.

3. After having obtained the sanction of the Chief Medical Officer, the complaint under different provisions of Food Adulteration Act 1954 was filed by the respondent No. 2, before first Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.

The learned Court below while passing the impugned order directed for registration of the case and summoned the accused while fixing date.

It is proper to mentioned it here that this order dated 10th November, 2009 has been passed by way of rubber stamp in the following manner:

Þvkt ;g pkykuh fjiksVZ Fkkus ls izkIr gqbZ ntZ jftLVj gks A

vfHk;qDr }kjk lEeu fnukWad 30-1-2010 fu;r djds ryc djs A”

Heard Shri Siddharth, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate.

4. It has been argued on behalf of the revisionist that the manner in which the cognizance has been taken, is against the provisions of law. There is no indication in the impugned order that the learned Court below has taken note of and has considered the facts involved nor it has recorded any finding that a prima facie case worth proceeding trial against the accused persons is made out.

It has also been argued that the revisionists, not being the personal entity, the Court below has not taken proper care in summoning the accused by application of proper proposition of law.

5. On behalf of the respondents, the argument has been advanced in favour of the impugned order.

By the impugned order the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 and thus, while deciding the present revision it is incumbent on the part of the Court to lay down as to what is the import of the word “cognizance” and when a cognizance is said to have been taken. Further as to what are the requirements for taking cognizance and whether such requirements have been followed in the present case.

6. The word “cognizance” has repeatedly been used in different Sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”. However, this word has nowhere been defined in Cr.P.C.

The word “cognizance” has been defined in different judgments of the Apex Court. In the case of S. K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited and others, (2008)2 SCC 492. The word cognizance has been narrated as follows:

“The expression “cognizance” has not been defined in Cr.P.C.. But the word (cognizance) is of definite import. It has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law. It merely means “become aware of” and when used with reference to a Court or a judge, it connotes “to take notice of judicially”. It indicates the point when a Court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone”

7. In the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Bhushan Kumar and another v. State of NCT of Delhi and another, 2012(5) SCC 424, the expression of cognizance has been described as follows:

“The expression “cognizance” in Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. is entirely a different thing from initiation of proc