P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.) On the view expressed by a Division Bench of S.K. Sen, J. and K.C. Sen, J. by their order of reference dated the 31st August. 1960 the learned Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench for determination of the following points raised on the order of reference : " (1) Does the Special Judge appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Spe- cial Courts) Act, 1949, to whom the case has been allotted by notification under Section 4 (2) or the Act need a petition of complaint for taking cognizance of the case or does he take cognizance when on receiving the Government notification and the record of the case from the Court of the Magistrate, he applies his mind to the-facts of the case; and (2) Was this point rightly decided in the un-reported decisions in two Criminal Appeals-Nos. 377 of 1958 with the title Sudhanshu Ram Guha v. The State and 393 of 1959 with the title Nemai Chandra Paul v. The State being cases decided by a Division Bench of N.K. Sen, J. and D. N. Das Gupta, J. 011 the 6th July, 1959 and in four Criminal Revision Cases 1545 to 1548. of 1959 with the title The State v. Pranlal Jamunalal Vora decided by the Division Bench of N.K. Sen, J. and D.N. Das Gupta, J. on the 22nd December, 1959".
(2.) Taking cognizance is a well-known but undefined concept in criminal jurisprudence. The Criminal Procedure Code does not define the word "cognizance". There is no statutory definition of what cognizance means. Judicial decisions however have indicated the character and nature of cognizance in criminal jurisprudence-It is unnecessary to review in detail the long line of authorities and cases discussing the idea and nature of cognizance. I need only cite the observations of Kama, C. J. in the Supreme Court decision in R.R. Chari v. State of U. P., as being the most authoritative pronouncement on the subject; "After referring to the observations in Emperor v. Sourendra Mohan, ILR 37 Cal 412 it was stated by Das Gupta, J. in Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W. Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee, as follows: "What is taking cognizance "as not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code and I have no desire to attempt to define it. It seems to me clear however that before it can be said that any Magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under section 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, he must not only apply his mind to the contents of the petition but he must have done so for the purpose of proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the subsequent provisions of this chapter--proceeding under sec-lion 200 and thereafter sending it for enquiry and report under Section 202. When the Magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding under the subsequent sections of this chapter, but for taking notion of some other kind, e.g. ordering an investigation under section 156 (3), or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence. In our opinion that is the correct approach to the question before us in this Court".
(3.) Having indicated the nature and concept of cognizance in criminal jurisprudence, the point for decision of this Full Bench Reference is how a Special Judge appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 takes cognizance of the case which is distributed to him under Section 4 (2) of the Act, before its amendment by the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) (Amending) Act, 1960 prescribing the methods of taking cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.;