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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 23361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUBY ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
R1(*DELETED) – Respondent
Crl.MC 508/2025



The court established that under the BNSS, a Magistrate must examine the complainant and witnesses on oath before issuing notice to the accused, ensuring the accused's right to be heard post-cognizance.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 223(1) - Notice to accused - The court addressed whether notice must be issued to the accused before taking cognizance of an offence, emphasizing the necessity of examining the complainant and witnesses first. It was found that the Magistrate must provide an opportunity for hearing after such examination. (Paras 2, 6, 7, 8)

(B) Cognizance - Definition and process - Cognizance is taken when a Magistrate becomes aware of an offence, which does not require formal action. The court clarified that the accused has no locus standi during the preliminary inquiry stage. (Paras 4, 5)

(C) Procedural requirements - The court reinforced that under the BNSS, a complaint must be followed by an examination of the complainant and witnesses, with notice to the accused issued prior to taking cognizance. (Paras 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the lower court's issuance of notice to the accused before examining the complainant and witnesses, arguing it contravened Section 223(1) of the BNSS.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the prior order, and mandated that the complainant and witnesses be examined before the accused is notified.

Issues: The key issue was whether notice to the accused is required before taking cognizance of an offence under the BNSS.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Magistrate must examine the complainant and witnesses before issuing notice to the accused, ensuring the accused has an opportunity to be heard post-cognizance.

Result: The Crl.M.C is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and procedural requirements are as follows:

  1. Examination of Complainant and Witnesses Before Issuance of Notice: The court emphasized that under the relevant legal provisions, a Magistrate must examine the complainant and any witnesses on oath prior to issuing notice to the accused. This examination must be recorded and conducted before the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence (!) .

  2. Stage of Taking Cognizance: Cognizance is the point at which the Magistrate becomes aware of the offence and is a prerequisite for initiating proceedings. It does not require formal action but occurs when the Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected offence (!) (!) .

  3. Procedure for Filing a Complaint: Upon receiving a complaint, the Magistrate is required to examine the complainant on oath and examine any witnesses present. Only after this examination should the Magistrate proceed to take cognizance and issue process to the accused (!) (!) .

  4. Mandatory Opportunity for the Accused: While examining the complaint and witnesses is necessary before taking cognizance, the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard after the Magistrate has examined the complainant and witnesses and before taking cognizance, as mandated by the relevant legal provisions (!) (!) .

  5. Timing of Notice to the Accused: The court clarified that notice to the accused should be issued only after the Magistrate has examined the complainant and witnesses on oath and has decided to take cognizance. Issuing notice before such examination contravenes the procedural requirement (!) (!) .

  6. Discretion of the Magistrate: The Magistrate has the discretion to decide whether to issue process after examining the complainant and witnesses. The Magistrate may also postpone issuing process or direct investigation, but this discretion must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the procedural rules (!) (!) .

  7. Conclusion and Directions: The court allowed the petition, quashed the earlier order, and directed that the Magistrate must examine the complainant and witnesses on oath before proceeding to take cognizance. The accused shall be given an opportunity of hearing if the Magistrate decides to proceed after such examination (!) (!) .

In summary, the procedural requirement is that the Magistrate must first examine the complainant and witnesses under oath before issuing notice to the accused and taking cognizance of the offence. The accused's right to be heard is to be ensured after this examination and prior to the Magistrate's decision to proceed further.


ORDER

The introduction of three new criminal laws; the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS for short), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS for short) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA for short), has given rise to many interesting and intriguing legal issues. One such conundrum, coming up for consideration in this case, is whether Section 223 (1) of the envisages issuance of notice to the accused named in the complaint before taking cognisance of the offence.

2. Adv.Shaju Francis appearing for the petitioner submitted that the court below grossly erred in issuing notice to the accused in the complaint filed by the petitioner, even before examining the petitioner and his witnesses on oath. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the illegality is perpetuated by the learned Magistrate issuing notice to the accused, in spite of the oral objection raised initially and the written objection filed thereafter. According to the counsel, even on plain reading of Section 223 (1), it is apparent that the accused need be issued with notice only at the stage of taking cognisance. It is submitted that the legal position as to when notice under (1) is to be issued, laid down by the High Court of Karnataka in Basanagouda R Patil v. Shivananda S Patil [2024 SCC OnLine Kar 96], though brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, was not adverted to.

3. The contentions call for close scrutiny of Section 223 (1) of BNSS , since in Section 200 of Cr.P.C, which is the corresponding provision in the Code, the proviso to (1) was absent. Presumably, the purpose behind the proviso is to provide an opportunity to the Magistrate to assimilate the correct facts, for deciding whether or not to take cognizance of the offence. For ease of reference, is extracted hereunder;

“223. Examination of complainant.

(1)A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard:

Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-

(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint;

or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 212:

Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 212 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re- examine them.

(2)A Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint against a public servant for any offence alleged to have been committed in course of the discharge of his official functions or duties unless- (a) such public servant is given an opportunity to make assertions as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged; and (b) a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to such public servant is received. “

4. As the term cognizance is not defined in BNSS , it will be profitable to refer the following erudite exposition of the Supreme Court in S.K.Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. and Others . [(2008) 2 SCC 492] .

“19. The expression “cognizance” has not been defined in the Code. But the word (cognizance) is of indefinite 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 bee

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 Back to top